I would have preferred to have seen dual sub outs on the Controller for my dual U2s (4 W2 cabinets), but as it remains an unknown whether the BM in the Controller is so much better than when running through the X1, that it may be premature to be bumming about it at this point. With the X1, we also have the additional benefit of knowing we can mod it to go deeper if we choose to, and I'm not sure whether that would even be an option on the Controller. No doubt, there are tradeoffs with either approach.

If I get the Controller, I will be very interested to compare the two different sub connection options. My hope would be that electronics in the Controller are so much cleaner than in an X1, and when combined with the advantages of the DSP, make the tradeoff of giving up the X1s tweakability and stereo bass potential worth forgoing. Stereo bass is a debateable advantage, and with my M6es being able to go down to 61 Hz, this may be less of a problem than other NHT speakers with less bass extension. At this point, we really are speculating here.

It looks to me like they could have a simple software upgrade/revision on the pre/pro if they really wanted to to boost Evo subs output down to -3 db at 20 Hz.

You may have a point as I have also wondered myself just how much advantage there really is to "stereo" bass if you have the high pass crossover low enough.

On the Fours though, with the crossover to the built in subs being at 125 Hz, IMO that's just too high to get away with using a single A1 to bi-amp with in conjunction with a X2.

You may find the experimentation with placement of an M6 ontop of a U1 that was done by reviewer Peter Moncreiff, which I cited a few pages back, to be of particular interest. Be forewarned, it is a very long read (think novelette), but does contain more detailed info on the NHT Evo subs than is found anywhere else. It starts here: http://www.iar-80.com/page103.html . The subwoofer info starts on page 110 of this online review.

While the U1 was covered in great detail in that review, and it does enjoy the unique benefit of opposing woofers that cancel vibration -- making it particularly well suited to placing things on top of the cabinet; I do think the U2 works out even better in some ways for running with the idea of subs as speaker stands. If you stack a pair of the U2s (each U2 system has 2 W2 cabinets) you end up with a 28" speaker stand (same as the P6 pedestal). Now, if you can swing getting two U2 systems (4 W2s), then you end up creating what are essentially two line sources with (2) 12" woofers per side. This also creates natural stereo bass (like a T6/T5) with a very small footprint; and as Mr. Moncreiff points out, with none of the inherent disadvantages of the B5/B6 bass modules. Not perfect for every room and everyone, but an idea that may be worth considering.




It was mentioned earlier in this thread that the B5 and B6 bass modules have been discontinued by NHT.

Copied and pasted from a post of mine on another thread:

That loooong article does have some good points in it, but I also wonder about some of it.

For instance, he talks so much about the "kick back" forces on the all the non-W1 subs (which is all the rest, B5, B6, and W2). Well, just out of curiosity I filled up a big 3 liter plastic bottle full of water and placed it right up beside and touching the opposite driver side of the B5 during War Of The Worlds. Didn't see the water so much as slightly ripple even once. Don't believe it, try it.

As for some of the other things he said about tweeter height, tweeters on the outside rather than in, etc., well, I'm sorry, but I trust what Jack H. says more.

That is a very interesting idea about dual, stacked U2s as stands though.

[/QUOTE]
I do think the U2 works out even better in some ways for running with the idea of subs as speaker stands. If you stack a pair of the U2s (each U2 system has 2 W2 cabinets) you end up with a 28" speaker stand (same as the P6 pedestal). Now, if you can swing getting two U2 systems (4 W2s), then you end up creating what are essentially two line sources with (2) 12" woofers per side. This also creates natural stereo bass (like a T6/T5) with a very small footprint; and as Mr. Moncreiff points out, with none of the inherent disadvantages of the B5/B6 bass modules. Not perfect for every room and everyone, but an idea that may be worth considering. [/QUOTE]

I like that idear. I have read most of the review sometime back, might reread it.





[/QUOTE]It was mentioned earlier in this thread that the B5 and B6 bass modules have been discontinued by NHT.[/QUOTE]

I am trying to get caught up on reading this thread. In fact I would guess it is the biggest NHT thread on AVS. Been a fun read.
Thanks Allen

It's a monster NHT thread.

On August 30 this thread will be celebrating it's 1st birthday!

... And most of it was about us waiting for the speakers to arrive. :p

Hi,

I noticed this thread about a year ago when I made my decision to go for a T6 with M6 center and 4 L5s for surround for my new HT. I auditioned this setup against the usual suspects from the competition and for me it just sounded best. I struggle to articulate exactly why but I just felt more engaged with the movie. Unfortunately I put my project on hold because I had to go back home to the UK for a while but I have risked the London to Washington United flights and my first priority is to get back to my HT!!

I will probably want to buy in the next 3-4 months but my dealer has a good deal on his demo setup ($3.5k) now. BUT, having read this thread I wonder if I need to go back to the drawing board and look at 3s/4s. My room is 20' by 20' and will be 100% movies and I have not yet settled on a pre/pro combination.

It feels like the concept of using 3s with evolution subs might be a good alternative but is that just a "workaround" until NHT release something better? Do this mix and match work OK with the Controller? What about the power5? Any recommendations on my setup would be great.

I suppose the choice is do a take the deal or wait a few months and get what is best at that time?

Any help much appreciated.

Thanks

Piers

I will probably want to buy in the next 3-4 months but my dealer has a good deal on his demo setup ($3.5k) now. BUT, having read this thread I wonder if I need to go back to the drawing board and look at 3s/4s. My room is 20' by 20' and will be 100% movies and I have not yet settled on a pre/pro combination.

It feels like the concept of using 3s with evolution subs might be a good alternative but is that just a "workaround" until NHT release something better? Do this mix and match work OK with the Controller? What about the power5? Any recommendations on my setup would be great.

I think there are some one here that genuinely prefer the sound of the M6 to the Three, but my take is that unless you either need very high-volume ouput, or if you have an acoustically difficult room, go with the Threes plus the Evo subs.

My understanding of the Controller is that it will handle just about any combination of NHT speakers (of Super Audio, Classic, Evolution, or Xd vintage) you can throw at it. The Power5 is just an amp that happens to be a little smarter when bossed around by the Controller.

I'd guess it would be a year or two (at least!) before we see anything out of NHT in terms of the stuff John has beeng asking for, like smaller/bigger veresions of the Four and sealed Classic subs, if at all. But that's just my completely uninformed guess.

The upshot being, go for the Classic Threes and Evolution subs now and enjoy. If something better comes out, that's what trade-ins are for!

I like this. I don't even have to participate any more. Now if I could just get you guys to tag team running my store so I could take a vacation! Seriously, most of you guys could do it now :)

But I do have something to contribute. I finally attempted to put a badge on my 3C (yes, I opened my first one!) and holy CRAP!!!! No shite, it's hard to put in! But, there is something for people to do. First, take a nail and poke the fabric so it is big enough to get the little plastic prongs through so the fabric doesn't try to go through holes with the prongs. Then put it on the edge of a table or over something that allows you to hulk down on it until it goes in. But, man, you guys weren't kidding! They need to include a special tool!

The 3C badge is crazy! I made the mistake of using my coffee table as the surface when I was trying to pound the thing on. I ventually got it in, but... now I have 6-8 peg-size dents in my coffee table, which isn't a huge deal as the thing was bought used and cheap to begin with, but man! This is crazy! I managed to put some scratches in the badge too... might try to get a replacement at some point.

As to running your store... that sounds good right now. There's a pretty stereotypical lull in my program at school around year 3-4 where things become very boring and it's hard to care about my project. All sorts of jobs are sounding much more appealing these days! I'll keep plugging away at it, but Apple Store Genius, web design, coding, audio sales, restaraunt cook... Everything sounds good right now.

But I'm sure it's not all fun and games. Like when you've got lots of impatient customers waitin gon new speakers to be released... Or when people endlessly stalk you on forums...

Zaracsan, have you ever tried your dual U2s (4 W2s) as stacked, co-located stands for each of your M6s with an A1 per side so that in effect you have a set of T6s, only with forward facing drivers, and if so, what did you think of the results?

I finally attempted to put a badge on my 3C (yes, I opened my first one!) and holy CRAP!!!! No shite, it's hard to put in! But, there is something for people to do. First, take a nail and poke the fabric so it is big enough to get the little plastic prongs through so the fabric doesn't try to go through holes with the prongs. Then put it on the edge of a table or over something that allows you to hulk down on it until it goes in. But, man, you guys weren't kidding! They need to include a special tool! No, No, NO! (lmao). NHT (Jonathan), checked on this for me & the factory in China actaully shipped the wrong badges for the 3c. It will never work properly, so dont pound it. Ask them to replace the badge....the unit he sent worked like a charm. :)

No, No, NO! (lmao). NHT (Jonathan), checked on this for me & the factory in China actaully shipped the wrong badges for the 3c. It will never work properly, so dont pound it. Ask them to replace the badge....the unit he sent worked like a charm. :)

Well, it'll fit eventually :-)

But I guess I should get the replacement.

No, No, NO! (lmao). NHT (Jonathan), checked on this for me & the factory in China actaully shipped the wrong badges for the 3c. It will never work properly, so dont pound it. Ask them to replace the badge....the unit he sent worked like a charm. :)

Oh, it will fit. But it will fight you all the way. Well, I'm *so* glad Jonathan informed me of this :rolleyes:

Zaracsan, have you ever tried your dual U2s (4 W2s) as stacked, co-located stands for each of your M6s with an A1 per side so that in effect you have a set of T6s, only with forward facing drivers, and if so, what did you think of the results?

I have a question if you set up your m6 or m5 like this will you have stereo bass or does the x1 just take the lower crossover and send it to each set of woofers. The 2 on the left and the 2 on the right at the same time. Also with the u2 or u1 only going down to around 27hz would you still use a sub like a DD 18 or an ACI Maestro that goes down to around 16 or 18 hz for the lfe channel.
Allen

Oh, it will fit. But it will fight you all the way. Well, I'm *so* glad Jonathan informed me of this :rolleyes: No pain no gain. :rolleyes:
NHT doesn't 'officially' know the part is the wrong one, but mysteriously the replacement had much smaller diameter pins.

Thanks for your reply Mattwardfh. Can I ask what you mean by accoustically difficult room? My room is 17' wide by 20' long with 8'6" ceilings - does that count!! I don't yet have treatments installed.

As I don't yet have any kit what would be the ideal setup for a 3s with evo subs and how would it hang together? I'm assuming it would make sense to get NHT controller and power5 kit with NHT speakers......or is that a bad assumption!

Thanks

Piers

Thanks for your reply Mattwardfh. Can I ask what you mean by accoustically difficult room? My room is 17' wide by 20' long with 8'6" ceilings - does that count!! I don't yet have treatments installed.

The M5/6 have fairly directional responses in certain frequency ranges, which helps in rooms where omnidirectional response at those frequencies would lead to bad reflections.

I'm out on a limb a bit here, as we're getting past my knowledge of those speakers, but I think it's useful if your room isn too live or is of an odd shape. Oh, and also they have a boundary switch which adjusts frequency response for when they're placed in furniture or against walls, which gives you a little more flexibility there.

As I don't yet have any kit what would be the ideal setup for a 3s with evo subs and how would it hang together? I'm assuming it would make sense to get NHT controller and power5 kit with NHT speakers......or is that a bad assumption!

So the best setup would be 4-6 Threes, a 3C, 2 U1 subs, the Controller, and the Power5 (with optional Power2 if you're going to run additional surround channels).

Although given the size of your room, I'd bet a 5.1 setup would be fine, so you can stick to 4 Threes, a 3C, and a single U1 or U2 set. You can save a little on electronics by going with a good quality receiver from somebody else, if you need, but the Controller/Power5 will probably be optimum. Easy setup and optimized sound.

So let me recount some of the more notable claims gleaned from reading this thread.

Tom Nousaine doesn't know how to measure speakers.

Bob Carver is deaf.

NHT marketing and delivery suck.

It's easy to compare speakers, you just listen to them at some point and then rely on memory.

The new NHT speakers are the bestest NHTs ever. Until the newer one comes out.


(Btw, I agree with one of these items.)


--
k.
(5.1 system: SuperOnes all around + Velodyne F1000 sub)

The new NHT speakers are the bestest NHTs ever. Until the newer one comes out.

Well, I'd hope the company keeps putting out better stuff rather than spinning their wheels. If my experience comparing the SuperZero to the SB1 to the AbsoluteZero, and the SB3 to the Three is accurate, then yeah, they are an improvement on the older ones.

Though I haven't heard stuff like the 3.3 so certainly it's incomplete. But even if you were sharing that line sarcastically (were you?), there's some truth to it.

The new NHT speakers are the bestest NHTs ever.

Not so fast there!

After extensively auditioning the the Threes against the M5s of my T5s while using the subs in the T5 for both, here it is in a nutshell.

The Threes do in fact seem to do some things better than the M5s, such as dispersion/sound staging, and vice-versa, such as slam and dynamics in the M5's favor.

Bottom line for me personally though, the M5s will be staying as they will play noticeably louder without strain or congestion. The Threes start to labor and run out of gas much earlier while the M5 is still not even breaking a sweat. Plus they have wall mountable matching surrounds which is a must for me in that particular room.

Against the M6s, the Threes advantages are even smaller while it's disadvantages are even greater.

Interesting enough, the Three did MUCH better than the M5 or even the M6 IMO with the high pass crossover set at 50 Hz.

I also compared them to my SB-3s, and the Three is a definite overall upgrade over the SB-3 (although the SB-3 does do bass better IMO).

So it ends like this, I'm getting a pair of Threes to replace the SB-3s in my office rig. I have a spare X1/A1 I just picked up for cheap, so I will eventually get another set of W2s to have a complete U2 set of subs to go with the Threes in the office rig.

I was driving the SB-3s with a Cambridge Audio 640A (V1) integrated amp, but I just picked up a HK AVR 240 off of a Target clearance rack of all places to use in my 2 channel office rig. It has 65 watts X 2 in stereo mode, and with HK, you can count on that, and then some. I will use the sub out on the HK AVR to the X1/A1 of the forthcoming U2 set for the office rig. Plus, I have an old '96 vintage Yamaha CD changer I will integrate into the system using the HK AVR's much more modern 192/24 bit DACs.

Now the question is what do I do with my pair of SB-3s as I won't really have any use for them anymore after this.

Now the question is what do I do with my pair of SB-3s as I won't really have any use for them anymore after this.The answer is "Sell them".

Obviously, 2 six inch woofers, are going to provide much more grunt from the crossover point up than a single driver (M6 vs Classic 3). I have gotten reacquainted with my M6 rig recently and I can see why Stereophile rated them as Class A. They do most things very right and will give you all the volume you need to boot. When coupled to the U1s (I've got two of them) we're talking a very full range sound that will play LOUD without strain. In this respect, I'm sure the M6 has it all over the Xd system.

Ok need help here guys.

I purchased classic 4s /rears Classic 3/Center 3C also a Velodyne DLS 5000R sub/ Pioneer Elite VSX-82-TSX receiver.

Here is the question: I have some audioquest CV-6 biwire with dbs36V. speaker wire.

since I am not using an amp (just my new reciever) Can I remove the jumper on the back of the classic 4s and go 2 wires on top for highs and mids, and the other 2 on the bottom for the sub????

Also I have the same biwire speaker cable for my center channel, but I only have 2 post on the center channel can I just use 2 of the biwires and maybe tape the other 2 bannana posts????

I bought this cable because I was looking down the line when I buy addition amps, just trying to figure how I can use them now!!!

Thanks for your help in advance.

Obviously, 2 six inch woofers, are going to provide much more grunt from the crossover point up than a single driver (M6 vs Classic 3). I have gotten reacquainted with my M6 rig recently and I can see why Stereophile rated them as Class A. They do most things very right and will give you all the volume you need to boot. When coupled to the U1s (I've got two of them) we're talking a very full range sound that will play LOUD without strain. In this respect, I'm sure the M6 has it all over the Xd system.




Tony don't you use your U1 for the speakers stand for your m6. Do you think this works good even though it is a little lower then what a T 6 would be. This does put you within an inch of the t5 height.

I would have thought the stand for the m6 would have been lower than the m5 because the m6 is longer. And I would have guess the tweeter should have been at the same height on either speaker.
Allen

Here is the question: I have some audioquest CV-6 biwire with dbs36V. speaker wire.

since I am not using an amp (just my new reciever) Can I remove the jumper on the back of the classic 4s and go 2 wires on top for highs and mids, and the other 2 on the bottom for the sub????

Also I have the same biwire speaker cable for my center channel, but I only have 2 post on the center channel can I just use 2 of the biwires and maybe tape the other 2 bannana posts????


Yes, you CAN use the bi-wires. Hook them up as you described to the Fours. If your AVR has only 1 set of binding posts for main L/R, hook one set of wires up with spades, the other with bananas on the same binding post terminal set.

Use the spade/banana combo on the 3C as well.

What the hell, you've got 'em, just as well use 'em!

Later on down the line, you could add an X2 and a set of A1s or an amp such as a NAD C27/C272 to bi-amp with since you've already got the wires you would need for it.

I forgot to add they all have 2 wires to the AVR and 4 wires to the speakers.

Tony don't you use your U1 for the speakers stand for your m6. Do you think this works good even though it is a little lower then what a T 6 would be. This does put you within an inch of the t5 height.

I would have thought the stand for the m6 would have been lower than the m5 because the m6 is longer. And I would have guess the tweeter should have been at the same height on either speaker.
Allen

I actually have my U1s in opposite front corners of the room. I think they sound better there. Woofers in the middle of the room give very unpredictable response IMO.

In this respect, I'm sure the M6 has it all over the Xd system.

Actually, you'd be *very* surprised. The M6s may ultimately play louder, but up until probably 105dB or thereabouts, the Xds sound better and lower in distortion and easier on the ears. I can listen to Xds all day long at shockingly high volumes without fatigue. Few, if any, analog speakers allow me to listen so loud for so long and enjoy every moment.

^^^ I can attest to that, although the T6s do seem to have a higher, or taller soundstage.

BTW John, any new word on those filter updates they have been talking about?

Actually, you'd be *very* surprised. The M6s may ultimately play louder, but up until probably 105dB or thereabouts, the Xds sound better and lower in distortion and easier on the ears. I can listen to Xds all day long at shockingly high volumes without fatigue. Few, if any, analog speakers allow me to listen so loud for so long and enjoy every moment.With weight and authority in the upper bass?

With weight and authority in the upper bass?

Well, probably with the new crossover upgrade. I'm just saying overall. If I had to have a system to play loud (rather than simply fill a large room), Xd is it.

That being said, I want a 4-way Xd so bad I am close to designing it and building it myself. Jack is probably already dreading CEDIA because he has to talk to me in person :)

My my, someone is a bit krabby :)


Tom Nousaine doesn't know how to measure speakers.

Correct

Bob Carver is deaf.

Admittedly, that *could* be an urban legend, but the circumstantial evidence is strong :D

NHT marketing and delivery suck.

Yeah, unfortunately true, but it is getting much better. They're actually starting to get an idea of this newfangled marketing thing and we're getting lots of stuff arriving weekly.

It's easy to compare speakers, you just listen to them at some point and then rely on memory.

Don't remember anyone claiming *that*.

The new NHT speakers are the bestest NHTs ever. Until the newer one comes out.

Ummmm, I think we covered the bases here. The new speakers are equal or better than Super Audio in just about every way and sort of are better than/not quite as good as the Evolution series depending on the parameter.

SuperOnes, BTW, still great speakers. A little unrefined compared to the new ones, but lots of fun.

Now stop being krabby!

The answer is "Sell them".

"tivo1" is looking for used SB3s!

Not so fast there!

After extensively auditioning the the Threes against the M5s of my T5s while using the subs in the T5 for both, here it is in a nutshell.

The Threes do in fact seem to do some things better than the M5s, such as dispersion/sound staging, and vice-versa, such as slam and dynamics in the M5's favor.


Now, how do you actually test this? Harman tackled the inherent reliability problems in a typical speaker comparison -- which include effects of difference in position, and effects of sighted bias on preference -- by building a million-dollar facility that included quick-switching 'turntable' to bring pairs of speakers into the same position for blind comparison. IIRC they also do some sort of level-matching, and they also train listeners to hear various kinds of defects. I'm just wondering why they went to all the bother if it's possible to get such reliable, unbiased results from the comparisons as described here.

Now, how do you actually test this? Harman tackled the inherent reliability problems in a typical speaker comparison -- which include effects of difference in position, and effects of sighted bias on preference -- by building a million-dollar facility that included quick-switching 'turntable' to bring pairs of speakers into the same position for blind comparison. IIRC they also do some sort of level-matching, and they also train listeners to hear various kinds of defects. I'm just wondering why they went to all the bother if it's possible to get such reliable, unbiased results from the comparisons as described here.

Cool. I've always wanted a turntable.

You've got a point. It would be best to do these comparisons under ideal circumstances. But circumstances are never ideal, and keep in mind that sometimes you just have to make do with the tools at your disposal. Add to it that there seems to be a consensus as to what the Evolution monitors do better and what the Classics do better.

It sounds like what your'e really after is an argument about blind testing, which, I would venture, is really out of the scope of this thread.

My my, someone is a bit krabby :)

Correct



Have you ever asked Nousaine why he uses the method he uses? He was online for years and years, you know. I still exchange emails with him now and then.


Admittedly, that *could* be an urban legend, but the circumstantial evidence is strong :D

Bob Carver also famously showed that he could replicate the sound of various amp topologies favored by 'golden ears' , in a single solid state amp, to such degree that the 'golden ears' (at Stereophile, as it happens) couldn't tell his amp from their favorite audio jewelry. Not bad for a 'deaf' guy. Perhaps you are extrapolating far too much from the Sunfire subs, which are aimed at a particular market (one that highly values compactness)?

Don't remember anyone claiming *that*.

It may be an urban legend, but circumstantial evidence on this very thread suggests it's a common enough method.

Now stop being krabby!

Thanks, but actually, I'm quite jovial. It's hard not to smile at some of the stuff written here.

I actually have my U1s in opposite front corners of the room. I think they sound better there. Woofers in the middle of the room give very unpredictable response IMO.

While you may have found this setup works well in your particular room Tony, it should be noted that such placement can actually create more problems with modal response than it solves. Further still, Harman Intl. Research Acoustician Todd Welti found in his much noted Subwoofers: Optimum Number and Locations white paper (see: this link (http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf)) that one of the best results for two subs was found when locating them at wall midpoints (on opposing walls). For corner sub location, much better results were found by locating the two subs in opposite corner of the room -- not in the front corners.

As Mr. Welti noted in his white paper, "The modal behavior sound... is often oversimplified or misunderstood." "There are some aspects of room modes which make "eyeballing" expected room responses from generalized standing wave plots risky." The point is, getting subs placed correctly may result in placement that is unexpected. Be prepared to experiment a bit for best results in your room. Measurement tools are helpful. You may also just have to accept the fact that in some cases furniture placement, poor room dimensions (and WAF for some) may ultimately force you into less-than-ideal sub placement. Just do the best with what you have to work with and consider offsetting less-than-ideal placement with room treatments and/or EQ tweaking.

For those considering either U1 or U2 subs, do understand there are some inherent differences in these two dissimilar design approaches. The U1 has two woofers mounted back-to-back in one cabinet. This gives it the unique advantage of having a sub cabinet that doesn't vibrate like a normal sub cabinet does, as well as creating a sub with greater efficiency. The down side of two speakers mounted in one cabinet, is that you don't have the placement flexibility that you have with two separate cabinets (like the U2). When you stack (or place side-by-side) two W2 cabinets (a W2 being a single sub cabinet from the U2 system) you do increase the effective output by 3 db. Both are excellent subs; but I would suggest that those trying to decide between these two subs, first give some serious thought to where you can place sub cabinets in your room.

Cool. I've always wanted a turntable.

You've got a point. It would be best to do these comparisons under ideal circumstances. But circumstances are never ideal, and keep in mind that sometimes you just have to make do with the tools at your disposal. Add to it that there seems to be a consensus as to what the Evolution monitors do better and what the Classics do better.

Great point. Now, to extend it to the logical conclusion, how much faith should one put in the 'consensus' arrived at by use of these tools -- or even one's own judgements? What caveats might one want to keep in mind, or even include in one's reports?

It sounds like what your'e really after is an argument about blind testing, which, I would venture, is really out of the scope of this thread.

Not hardly. No one can deny that the reasons for a preference can be a tricky thing..and might not be what the listener thinks they are. I've even seen allusions to this in the thread...where at least one or two contributors seem to take a more skeptical view of the enthusiasms expressed here, than others.

Great point. Now, to extend it to the logical conclusion, how much faith should one put in the 'consensus' arrived at by use of these tools -- or even one's own judgements? What caveats might one want to keep in mind, or even include in one's reports?

Of course, you want to normalize that person's opinion, either to a reference point (a speaker you've both heard), multiple reference points (more ideally), or (most ideally) by deriving a set of paramaters you can use (i.e. person A likes a bright speaker, doesn't care about bass precision as much as volume, and prefers a soundstage with pinpoint imaging to a wide/tall soundstage).

Doing so in a scientific sense, of course, is pretty difficult. Finding a particular someone whose opinion you trust goes a long way toward helping if you can consistently hear that person's opinion.

And then there are some other issues, i.e. associated equipment, room acoustics, source. But in the end there are too many variables to account for, and with someone you trust, you put some faith in their ability to listen through those things.

Fuzzy logic and intuitive stuff like that is something that people are surprisingly good at. It's when we try to completely formalize things that we tend to get lots of unintended artifacts.

Not hardly. No one can deny that the reasons for a preference can be a tricky thing..and might not be what the listener thinks they are. I've even seen allusions to this in the thread...where at least one or two contributors seem to take a more skeptical view of the enthusiasms expressed here, than others.

There are also lots of people out there who like nothing more than being critical of people's enthusiastic opinions. They're not any more trustworthy than the enthusiastic group.

I'm just wondering why they went to all the bother if it's possible to get such reliable, unbiased results from the comparisons as described here.

They're trying to be scientific rather than anecdotal. Nothing wrong with that, but if you asked my grandmother how to live, she'd have told you "all things in moderation". Then "science" came along, spent $millions of taxpayer money ($billions?) to destroy every food known to man, then come back around 20 years later to "all things in moderation". Gee, thanks. Anecdotal evidence told us that long ago.

If Harman wants to build a facility for me so I can do DBTs for my customers, I'll do it. But if I have to do it, my speaker prices are going to start at about $100,000/pr. How *precise* does "I like this better" have to be to be valid? If you think your wife is more attractive to you than another woman, do you need a scientific test to validate that for you? I wouldn't :)

Have you ever asked Nousaine why he uses the method he uses? He was online for years and years, you know. I still exchange emails with him now and then.

Oh, I e-mailed him a lot. I finally just gave up on him. He is who he is, he does what he does. He measures the "speaker/room" which is fine because it can give you some data, but I don't have is room, nor does anyone else. Moreover, it makes the FR as far as the speaker goes *completely* useless. In reality, measuring the "speaker/room" is really just an interesting thing, since we don't hear the room the way a mic measures it at all. So, he's misleading people by implying that he's measured the speaker. He hasn't.

Bob Carver also famously showed that he could replicate the sound of various amp topologies favored by 'golden ears' , in a single solid state amp, to such degree that the 'golden ears' (at Stereophile, as it happens) couldn't tell his amp from their favorite audio jewelry. Not bad for a 'deaf' guy. Perhaps you are extrapolating far too much from the Sunfire subs, which are aimed at a particular market (one that highly values compactness)?

Maybe :) But he actually managed to make electronic gear that bothered my ears. I don't know how he did that.

Thanks, but actually, I'm quite jovial. It's hard not to smile at some of the stuff written here.

Hey, I'm laughing at your posts right now :D

Still, at least you have good speakers, so you've got that going for you. But you might want to just enjoy things rather than getting all "Scientific America" on anything related to music!

Great point. Now, to extend it to the logical conclusion, how much faith should one put in the 'consensus' arrived at by use of these tools -- or even one's own judgements? What caveats might one want to keep in mind, or even include in one's reports?.

I have to prove to myself that I like something now? :eek:

Crap, I just bought a car without a DBT!!! Well, I tried that, but kept crashing :p

I wonder if it fits as much as I think it does or whether I just imagined it ;)

Now, how do you actually test this?

For many people, it isn't that hard.

In my case, I have listened to quite a bit of my music collection thru the SB3s for some time and have come to some definate conclusions regarding the strong and weak points of that speaker in the context of my setup and the music I listen to. So, it wasn't too hard to listen to my music thru the Classic Threes this time and see if those strong and weak points had changed some how. After going thru that exercise, it was very obvious the Classic Threes were a better speaker - again, in my context.

Now, if I were evaluating speakers in an unknown situation - unknown music, uncertain equipment - I would definately have a hard time coming to a conclusion and that's why I'm rather skeptical of reviews in general. But that's not the case in this thread. Most of the people here have lived with their music habits and equipment for a long time, enough to notice a change for the better or worse. I don't think you need "golden" ears (I hate that expression) to do this either.

John, as a dealer, do you have any idea why there seems to be plenty of Classic speakers on the grey market; but not enough on the dealers' hands?

Now, how do you actually test this? Harman tackled the inherent reliability problems in a typical speaker comparison -- which include effects of difference in position, and effects of sighted bias on preference -- by building a million-dollar facility that included quick-switching 'turntable' to bring pairs of speakers into the same position for blind comparison. IIRC they also do some sort of level-matching, and they also train listeners to hear various kinds of defects. I'm just wondering why they went to all the bother if it's possible to get such reliable, unbiased results from the comparisons as described here.

Since you obviously must have forgotten if you actually did read it the first time, allow me to refresh your memory:


Thanks for the review. Did you by chance use a high pass crossover at all for the Threes for bass integration since the x-over point on the 3.3s and 2.9s to the sub is 100 Hz if my memory serves me correctly.

I will have the chance to do something similar this coming weekend. I will have access to a pair of Threes from Saturday through Monday, and I intend to A/B compare them against the M5s on my T5s while using the T5's (B5) subs for both, and being able to switch between them with a simple A/B speaker selector switch on the amp.

The T5s are approx 6' apart with the subs facing out, so I will put the Threes on stands just inside of the T5s. Their spacing will be about 5', and I will have them both crossed over to start with at 80 Hz. Might bump the x-over up to as high as maybe 125 Hz a little too, as the Fours are just for experimentation.


mark - yes, xover used at 100Hz for apples to apples compare...

Also, I'll be interested in your feedback after you've demo'd...
if you get a chance try setting the Three's in a LRLR config & in front of your towers. I did this just to experiment with sound integration & would be interested in your feedback....


But then the imaging of the M5s would be compromised unless I go through the trouble of moving the Threes and stands back, which would make it difficult to do quick A/B comparisons. It'll be easier just to slide the chair forward or back to get the proper distance in each case.

We might not have Harman's multi-million dollar facility with a turntable, but we do the best we can. ;)

Based on your logic though, what's the point of even demoing different speakers in dealerships, or anywhere for that matter, even one's own home. Should no one decide between a set of speakers without first flying with them to Harman's facility to compare? I mean, after all, unless I'm with them in Harman's facility, I can't even trust my own ears that a set of NHT XDs really sound any better than a Bose Acoustimass system. :rolleyes:

Ugghh, Carver.
I know there is good and bad in every manufacturer's models, but
I bought a Carver M400 Magnetic Field Amp in 1980 and paired
it with a NAD 3020 Integrated amp as a preamp.
That thing must have had a S/N ratio of about 60 because the hiss was audible all the time.
And it made this putt putt sound.
I hooked it up to my friend's Klipsch Heresy's which were really efficient and
the hiss was so loud that the music was unlistenable.

When i tired of the Carver Amp I used the NAD 3020's amp section and it was a sonic revelation.

Of course, you want to normalize that person's opinion, either to a reference point (a speaker you've both heard), multiple reference points (more ideally), or (most ideally) by deriving a set of paramaters you can use (i.e. person A likes a bright speaker, doesn't care about bass precision as much as volume, and prefers a soundstage with pinpoint imaging to a wide/tall soundstage).

Doing so in a scientific sense, of course, is pretty difficult. Finding a particular someone whose opinion you trust goes a long way toward helping if you can consistently hear that person's opinion.

And then there are some other issues, i.e. associated equipment, room acoustics, source. But in the end there are too many variables to account for, and with someone you trust, you put some faith in their ability to listen through those things.

Fuzzy logic and intuitive stuff like that is something that people are surprisingly good at. It's when we try to completely formalize things that we tend to get lots of unintended artifacts.

There are also lots of people out there who like nothing more than being critical of people's enthusiastic opinions. They're not any more trustworthy than the enthusiastic group.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. However, Malcolm Gladwell notwithstanding, I have to disagree about the utility of 'fuzzy logic' and 'intuition' for generating *trustworthy* results in a consistent fashion. Scientific method, with its obsession with controls, is predicated on the demonstrable fact that such 'fuzzy observation' tends to generates artifacts, and is therefore inefficient. Dogged *formalization* of methods is what gets us results which hold for more than one time, for one person. Which isn't to say the methods you cite couldn't bring you to the same result -- but it's something of a crapshoot.

In the particular case of preference for speakers, Sean Olive at Harman ran an interesting study, using lots of trained and untrained subjects (including audio industry people and reviewers) that found that listeners tend to converge on preference for speakers that happen to measure well in certain parameters (e.g., off axis response, for one) when they were compared *blind* -- but when compared sighted, there was no correlation. In sighted comaprison, people are unavoidably influenced by things like brand/model reputation. , fit & finish, size, etc as well as sound.

The kicker of Olive's study (published in the JAES some few years ago) in particular was that one of the speakers rated *worst* when the comparisons were blinded, was a speaker that one of the audio mags had voted 'product of the year' previously. (It measured rather poorly too.)

One has to also consider that simply moving one's head a few inches to either side often significantly changes the 'sound' heard from the same speakers in the same room. We;re all aware too of the hobby lore that says optimal speaker positioning comes down to adjustment in *fractions* of inches. So even with direct comparison of two speakers in the same room, speaker position is arguably going to have a critical effect on sound...one which could influence 'preference' even though it's not really an intrinsic aspect of the speaker performance. Couple that with the rather poor performance of audio memory for anything other than relatively gross differences (as documented in the psychoacoustics literature), leads one to suspect that a typical speaker comparison is fraught with opportunities for mistakes in judgement.

Which is why I say of my dear SuperOnes: I likes 'em fine. And that's all. ;)

We might not have Harman's multi-million dollar facility with a turntable, but we do the best we can. ;)

"The best you can is good enough' makes for a good Radiohead lyric, but not necessarily for reliable data... I did read it the first time. Your method is not terrible , but also not, shall we say, immune ot critique.

Based on your logic though, what's the point of even demoing different speakers in dealerships, or anywhere for that matter, even one's own home.
Should no one decide between a set of speakers without first flying with them to Harman's facility to compare? I mean, after all, unless I'm with them in Harman's facility, I can't even trust my own ears that a set of NHT XDs really sound any better than a Bose Acoustimass system. :rolleyes:


This reads like an argument from despair, not reason. There's lots of things in life that we can't know as well as we'd like -- so is the best response to IGNORE that we can't know (or to assert more knowledge than is warranted), or to ACCEPT, and adjust one's claims and beliefs accordingly? Do we ignore possible sources of error, or acknowledge them (to ourselves, to our correspondents)?

I say: acknowledge them, and realize that my preferences for 'sound' might have other components. Perhaps try to minimize such factors where possible. Perhaps try to find out what has been discovered by people who HAVE been able to set up more rigorous comparisons. Perhaps investigate work on correlation between measurement and perception of quality. That's the best *I* can do. I like my speakers, I might like others better, or worse, but in every case I'd have to agree that my preference is unlikely to be purely based on sound, even if I want to believe it is.

(We're talking about preference here, remember. Based *entirely* on measurements, I could predict that most people will find the Xds to sound *different* from the Bose Acoustimass. You could make a case based on things like Toole/Olive that they'll find the Xds better sounding too. Some things do fall into the category of no-brainers; a subwoofer will tend to be (correctly) perceived as more bassy than a mini-cube. Duh. Some 'perceptions' are predictable from laws of physics and acoustics, even without listening tests.)

This 'matching claims to evidence quality' is a *radical* idea in the audio hobby, I know....I guess in the end it's about not fooling *yourself* or being overconfident about the *why* of what one hears. I think the idea that one's self is easily fooled, that we tend to overestimate the accuracy of our own subjective experience (which science, alas, has demonstrated again and again in various fields) offends some people.

Perhaps try to find out what has been discovered by people who HAVE been able to set up more rigorous comparisons.

Tell you what then, why don't you set us all up a comparison in Harman's lab between the Three and M5 with the same sub for both to save us all from our despair? :p

Ugghh, Carver.
I know there is good and bad in every manufacturer's models, but
I bought a Carver M400 Magnetic Field Amp in 1980 and paired
it with a NAD 3020 Integrated amp as a preamp.
That thing must have had a S/N ratio of about 60 because the hiss was audible all the time.
And it made this putt putt sound.

hmmm...loud hiss plus putt-putt sound...is it possible that the amp was defective?

Tell you what then, why don't you set us all up a comparison in Harman's lab between the Three and M5 with the same sub for both to save us all from our despair? :p

I'd love to...but I'm not sure how to arrange that with Harman. Can you hook me up?

While you may have found this setup works well in your particular room Tony, it should be noted that such placement can actually create more problems with modal response than it solves. Further still, Harman Intl. Research Acoustician Todd Welti found in his much noted Subwoofers: Optimum Number and Locations white paper (see: this link (http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf)) that one of the best results for two subs was found when locating them at wall midpoints (on opposing walls). For corner sub location, much better results were found by locating the two subs in opposite corner of the room -- not in the front corners.

As Mr. Welti noted in his white paper, "The modal behavior sound... is often oversimplified or misunderstood." "There are some aspects of room modes which make "eyeballing" expected room responses from generalized standing wave plots risky." The point is, getting subs placed correctly may result in placement that is unexpected. Be prepared to experiment a bit for best results in your room. Measurement tools are helpful. You may also just have to accept the fact that in some cases furniture placement, poor room dimensions (and WAF for some) may ultimately force you into less-than-ideal sub placement. Just do the best with what you have to work with and consider offsetting less-than-ideal placement with room treatments and/or EQ tweaking.

For those considering either U1 or U2 subs, do understand there are some inherent differences in these two dissimilar design approaches. The U1 has two woofers mounted back-to-back in one cabinet. This gives it the unique advantage of having a sub cabinet that doesn't vibrate like a normal sub cabinet does, as well as creating a sub with greater efficiency. The down side of two speakers mounted in one cabinet, is that you don't have the placement flexibility that you have with two separate cabinets (like the U2). When you stack (or place side-by-side) two W2 cabinets (a W2 being a single sub cabinet from the U2 system) you do increase the effective output by 3 db. Both are excellent subs; but I would suggest that those trying to decide between these two subs, first give some serious thought to where you can place sub cabinets in your room.I agree with everything you say. I have read the Welti's article several times. Unfortunately, I don't have a dedicated theater room and placement options are restricted as there are bookcases in the way of sub placement. One of the compromises I had to make.

I guess I should have said "Sound better to me given my placement options". That said, I don't think that sitting the M6s on top of the W1s in the middle of the room would ever be a very good compromise. YMMV.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. However, Malcolm Gladwell notwithstanding, I have to disagree about the utility of 'fuzzy logic' and 'intuition' for generating *trustworthy* results in a consistent fashion. Scientific method, with its obsession with controls, is predicated on the demonstrable fact that such 'fuzzy observation' tends to generates artifacts, and is therefore inefficient. Dogged *formalization* of methods is what gets us results which hold for more than one time, for one person. Which isn't to say the methods you cite couldn't bring you to the same result -- but it's something of a crapshoot.

I'm a scientist by training, so I know enough about the scientific method that I'm not just full of crap here.

Science is pretty much a crapshoot, too. And this is particularly true in the audio world, where testing methodology is just plain bad. The only thing that's consistently reproducible is measurements, which is why I like them, but even measurements can fool you if they're performed badly, or if certain things are ommitted.

When it comes to listening tests, think of the Pepsi/Coke blind taste test. People consistently preferred Pepsi, primarily because it was sweeter. But that doesn't mean they liked Pepsi better, just that they like it better under those conditions, which, in particular, were brief.

I once was laying down in an MRI for an hour while being given alternating sips of Coke and Pepsi and reporting which I preferred. It was dark. The soda was flat because otherwise it messed up their delivery system. It was diet coke and diet pepsi. Eventually, I lost the ability to reliably descriminate between them, and I have pretty good tastebuds.

The point is that in the quest for consistent scientific measurement of audio equipment, we create artificial scenarios that have nothing to do with how accurately and satisfyingly they produce music.

And we introduce artifacts into the data that are as bad, or even worse, than what happens in non-blind listening.

Nag, nag, nag...... :rolleyes:

Also, keep in mind that the level of control necessary for an engineer to ensure he is going to put out a speaker that is both accepted in the marketplace and is without major flaw is different from the level of control needed to go in, listen and chose speakers based on their sound, the sound of the competition and your tastes.

This would make an interesting thread of its own, but has nothing to do with the Classic line.

John, as a dealer, do you have any idea why there seems to be plenty of Classic speakers on the grey market; but not enough on the dealers' hands?

I'm going to guess that it is because most of these grey market speakers don't exist except as a tool for getting people to give out their CC. Then they'll try to figure out how to get a pair. I still can't get enough and I get a disproportionate amount of gear, trust me.

For corner sub location, much better results were found by locating the two subs in opposite corner of the room -- not in the front corners.

Boy, I guess one of Krabapple's guys (Harman) has refuted the other (Noussaine) on this.

Boy, I guess one of Krabapple's guys (Harman) has refuted the other (Noussaine) on this.

Ouch! That'll leave a mark! :D

Unless, of course, Nousaine actually has his room in said Harman R&D facility. :p

I agree with everything you say. I have read the Weitl article several times. Unfortunately, I don't have a dedicated theater room and placement options are restricted as there are bookcases in the way of sub placement. One of the compromises I had to make.

Now that you mention it Tony, I do recall reading something you posted a while back about the challenges you faced with your sub placement. Most of us do have compromises of some sort to live with; other than the fortunate ones here with dedicated theater spaces. While useful to consider, I don't think the Welti research was ever intended to provide any absolute answers on placement (too many variables for that), but it can be instructional to those experimenting with sub placement in their own space.

Even if your sub placement is not as optimal for your space as is theoretically possible -- were you willing to refurnish -- I'll bet it still sounds pretty darn good. And really, isn't that what most of us are after? I'm just as guilty as many here are, when it comes to obsessing about things like this, and sometimes that does take some of the fun out of the hobby. Avoiding gross errors is good, but worrying about relatively small differences is mostly an exercise in futility, especially when the required changes are not easily accommodated.

I guess I should have said "Sound better to me given my placement options".

I wasn't trying to single you out for that comment Tony, as much as I was wanting to help the less well informed here to get a better handle on the subject.


That said, I don't think that sitting the M6s on top of the W1s in the middle of the room would ever be a very good compromise. YMMV.

I didn't get from the earlier posts, that anyone was thinking about placing W1s in "the middle of the room". In the Moncreiff review, he did play with positioning W1s further in to the room, and running multiple W1s -- even suggesting readers might want to have a W1 for every M6 used (which Welti noted can be problmeatic). He also played with laying the W1 on its side, so that the driver was closer to the floor; and still setting an M6 on top, with the suggestion of using a low slung chair. Not exactly practical advice for most, but he did note relatively low placement (using the W1 as a stand) did provide better than expected results.

While there are some tradeoffs involved with positioning subs away from a room boundary; I have observed that T5/T6 owners will often position their towers for optimal imaging; and most often, the towers end up being positioned several feet from the front wall. Which brings us back to one of the bigger plusses of the sub/satellite concept: being able to position the subs where do the most good. Rarely ever are subs placed in the same spot where the monitors sound the best. Using subs for speaker stands is, no doubt, a compromise where it comes creating the best possible bass. However, it does offer a workable compromise for some situations; and sometimes you just have to go with what works.

just got myself a T6, M6 center and 4 L5s for my new 7.1 HT. Very happy to be in the NHT club and VERY excited to hook them up. I was debating over whether to go the 3s with evo sub route but a $3.3k all in price convinced me not to wait until Mark or Krabapple managed to get some definitive answers from Harman's R&D lab.....

Just had to tell someone!

Piers

just got myself a T6, M6 center and 4 L5s for my new 7.1 HT. Very happy to be in the NHT club and VERY excited to hook them up. I was debating over whether to go the 3s with evo sub route but a $3.3k all in price convinced me not to wait until Mark or Krabapple managed to get some definitive answers from Harman's R&D lab.....

Just had to tell someone!

Piers

Congrats and welcome to *the club*!! :)

While there are some tradeoffs involved with positioning subs away from a room boundary; I have observed that T5/T6 owners will often position their towers for optimal imaging; and most often, the towers end up being positioned several feet from the front wall. Which brings us back to one of the bigger plusses of the sub/satellite concept: being able to position the subs where do the most good. Rarely ever are subs placed in the same spot where the monitors sound the best. Using subs for speaker stands is, no doubt, a compromise where it comes creating the best possible bass. However, it does offer a workable compromise for some situations; and sometimes you just have to go with what works.

Which is where the boundary adjustment on the X1 does wonders. ;) :D

just got myself a T6, M6 center and 4 L5s for my new 7.1 HT. Very happy to be in the NHT club and VERY excited to hook them up. I was debating over whether to go the 3s with evo sub route but a $3.3k all in price convinced me not to wait until Mark or Krabapple managed to get some definitive answers from Harman's R&D lab.....

Just had to tell someone!

Piers

Congrats! I guarantee you you will not be disappointed. :cool:

Which electronics will you be driving them with?

BTW, zaracsan, you have 2 U2 sets (4 W2s), with dual X1s as well as A1s at that, correct?

Have you ever experimented with them in Harman's middle of each wall placement suggestion?

Or ever stacked a pair of the W2s as the stands for each M6 so that in effect you have a set of T6s with forward firing drivers?

BTW, zaracsan, you have 2 U2 sets (4 W2s), with dual X1s as well as A1s at that, correct?

That is correct. I bought two complete U2 systems.

Have you ever experimented with them in Harman's middle of each wall placement suggestion?

No. With the way my room is setup, it would be nearly impossible to do that. I had thought about trying the four sub placement, where two cabinets are located at 1/3 and 2/3 positions along each of the side walls; but unfortunately one of the walls angles off where the LF would be placed.

Or ever stacked a pair of the W2s as the stands for each M6 so that in effect you have a set of T6s with forward firing drivers?

That is how I have them positioned for the time being. However, they remain silent while I wait on my new electronics. My HT plans have been massively delayed while I have been waiting on the next gen gear to come to market; meanwhile, I have already sold off my old gear in anticipation of having new stuff to replace it with. I have also been vacillating on some light construction I was planning for the front wall and was hoping to have had the electronics in place by now, in order to experiment with speaker placement before deciding on whether to do this little construction project or not. It is very frustrating to have seven M6es and two U2 systems sitting idle right now. :(

It is very frustrating to have seven M6es and two U2 systems sitting idle right now. :(

I'm sure it is. I'm feelin' your pain bro. :(

Congrats! I guarantee you you will not be disappointed. :cool:

Which electronics will you be driving them with?

I haven't decided yet. My room will not be ready for at least another 3 months. Will certainly be interested to hear how the Controller and Power5 perform. Little bit annoying (and expensive) that I would also need to get a power2 as well.

I'm sure it is. I'm feelin' your pain bro. :(

Thanks for the kind thought Mark; it's always good to be around folks that understand such things. :)

Fortunately for me, the pain is not going to be long term now...

I just received an e-mail letting me know that my Controller and Power5 will ship tomorrow!! Glory hallelujah!!

I'm going to guess that it is because most of these grey market speakers don't exist except as a tool for getting people to give out their CC. Then they'll try to figure out how to get a pair. I still can't get enough and I get a disproportionate amount of gear, trust me.


Errr, trust me, they exist. I had to go the eBay route since I couldn't get them from anywhere else and the seller had 10 pairs for sale. He shipped the same day too.

Then I have no idea. I am still back ordered and lost a few sales because I couldn't get enough black fast enough. I wish they would scrutinize me. I sell enough that they should be eyeballing me. And if they're scrutinizing me, then I *know* they'd be scrutinizing the guilty party. What really pisses me off most is that I can't get enough to make my customers happy locally and yet there are people who seem to have an abundance to sell on line.

That's why I'm so curious. I waited a long time to get these speakers from an AD and I'm still hoping to get my two surrounds and center from an AD. I'm rather upset too since obviously grey market speakers don't have a warranty.

Yeah,

It took my dealer awhile to get the 2 singles they ordered.

I picked up the 3s yesterday afternoon for an audition at home.

I am not going to post a "review" until I get the grilles on and the other sofa that is supposed to be delivered today.

Let's say that they are pretty unforgiving of any recording that is on the hot side.
But way more detailed than my $2500 Mirage M3s.

Will certainly be interested to hear how the Controller and Power5 perform. Little bit annoying (and expensive) that I would also need to get a power2 as well.

Hopefully I'll have good news to report by next week. :) We never did hear that much about John's recent install with the Xd HT, but I'm not sure he had that much of a chance to play around with the system after he set it up. Kal is writing a review for Stereophile; but without using any NHT speakers (Kal claimed it would require too much effort on his part to bother with NHT speakers :rolleyes: ); so I suspect the value of his review will be diminished by a fair margin, especially for those that see the NHT speaker specific DSP as one of the bigger selling points for the Controller. Fortunately for us, John seems to know far more about the Controller's DSP capabilities than Kal does and has demonstrated greater interest in fully exploring its capabilities. As expected, John remains *'da man* for all things NHT.

As for the Power5 requiring purchase of a Power2 for a 7.1 system; I was a little bummed about that at first; but upon further reflection, there are some plusses to offset the extra cost and space considerations. First, there is the reality that a good number of 200 watt/7-channel amps can not actually deliver their theoretical max output, due to the limitations of 15 amp circuit (1800w). With 6 ohm speakers that may dip down to 4, this may be a real factor for some 200 watt amps that can go 300 or 400 wpc @ 4 ohms. Two amp chassis is a benefit (IMO) in terms of flexibility and resale, it also leaves open the possibility of moving the Power2 to a stereo setup in another room, should you decide to swap the Power5 for something else down the road. I did find it interesting that NHT suggests you use the Power2 for the back channels rather than the front, which was my original plan, as I was told the Power2 was going to have more (250?) wpc than the Power5.

That seems a bit strange that they would recommend the Power2 for the rears - could it be anything to do with keeping your front 3 on the same amp???? Not sure that makes any sense.

Looking forward to hearing your views on the Controller/power5.

I suspect the value of his review will be diminished by a fair margin, especially for those that see the NHT speaker specific DSP as one of the bigger selling points for the Controller.

Well, yes, but imagine how few as a % of Kal's readers use NHT speakers or would "lower" themselves to even listen to them. Most won't give Xd its due. So, it will be nice to have reviews that show off the product simply for the product's sake. If I were Vinci Labs, however, I'd have retained the Fosgate name and made two versions of the product, one for NHT dealers under the NHT name and one for other dealers under the Fosgate name without the NHT specific EQ.

I did find it interesting that NHT suggests you use the Power2 for the back channels rather than the front, which was my original plan, as I was told the Power2 was going to have more (250?) wpc than the Power5.

I'm guessing that this is just "ease of explanation". In a given situation, the Power5 and Power2 would either be absolutely identical, or the Power2 would have a bit of an advantage. But from the standpoint of someone getting in, its just easier to say "add the Power2 for additional rears" or whatever. I didn't read the comment. I may add the Power2 for my U1 subs! :)

I would *love* to have a Power7 with 100-150W/channel but I don't think that is going to happen. A 100W/channel amp isn't generally deemed to be sufficient for the market place and therefore would have to be very inexpensive.

BTW, sorry I haven't been more helpful on the Controller, I've only seen one, hopefully the others I need will be here this week!

Well, yes, but imagine how few as a % of Kal's readers use NHT speakers or would "lower" themselves to even listen to them. Most won't give Xd its due. So, it will be nice to have reviews that show off the product simply for the product's sake. If I were Vinci Labs, however, I'd have retained the Fosgate name and made two versions of the product, one for NHT dealers under the NHT name and one for other dealers under the Fosgate name without the NHT specific EQ.

I do like your marketing idea better John; it's too bad you are on the wrong end of the audio food chain. As for Stereophile readers not "lowering themselves" to listen, I would argue that given Stereophile has awarded NHT speakers Class A status, their chances of having readers interested specifically in NHT gear is likely better than many other audio rags. It is unfortunate that Kal doesn't seem to get the import of the DSP for NHT speakers.

I'm guessing that this is just "ease of explanation". In a given situation, the Power5 and Power2 would either be absolutely identical, or the Power2 would have a bit of an advantage. But from the standpoint of someone getting in, its just easier to say "add the Power2 for additional rears" or whatever. I didn't read the comment. I may add the Power2 for my U1 subs! :)

My first thought was that since the Power5 claims a peak power of 300w to any individual channel (@8 ohms), and the Power2 doesn't state such a spec, that perhaps they were thinking the front channels would have greater reserve power with the Power 5 than the Power2? Not sure whether the original data I got for the Power2 of 250wpc was wrong, or they simply used the 6 ohm number (like they do with the A1). I am curious what the Power amps are rated for at 6 and 4 ohm loads.

You aren't the only one that thought of using the Power2 for subs, but I'm not sure if it would work out as well for my U2es. I really wanted to (at least) double the power from 250w per pair now, but am not sure if the Power2 is designed to accommodate 12 ohm nominal loads, as would be the case when you take the normal dual sub parallel wiring adapter off and run an amp (or channel) directly to a single W2 cabinet. I know something like a Crown pro amp is designed to work with 12 ohms (+), but I'm not sure how much power is the ceiling for a W2 cabinet. I was thinking 500w is fine, but 1000w is probably pushing it.

Well, I hope the Power2 is at least as good as the Power5, if not, it's a bit pricey. I'd like to have a 100W/ch alternative in these, but we'll see where they go. NHT isn't real bit into specsmanship though. They really don't think about it that much.

Well, I hope the Power2 is at least as good as the Power5, if not, it's a bit pricey. I'd like to have a 100W/ch alternative in these, but we'll see where they go. NHT isn't real bit into specsmanship though. They really don't think about it that much.

I suspect with the Power2 using the same B&O Ice internals as the Power5, the performance should pretty much mirror each other. I have ordered the Power2 as well and don't think I will be disappointed. A 100wpc amp would certainly be a nice fit for the smaller speakers in the lineup, but my guess would be that a 100wpc AVR would come first.

Following up the previous post John: How much power do you think is ideal to drive a single W2 cabinet with @ 12ohms? How about for a pair (in parallel) @ 6 ohms?

I'm a scientist by training, so I know enough about the scientific method that I'm not just full of crap here.

.
.
.


(re: audio)

And we introduce artifacts into the data that are as bad, or even worse, than what happens in non-blind listening.

Oh, really? As a fellow scientist, you know that after making such a claim, all you have to do is...prove it. You mgiht want to read the papers, too, and see how the tests were actually run.

And you must certainly ACKNOWLEDGE the artifacts that exist in sighted preference formation.

Boy, I guess one of Krabapple's guys (Harman) has refuted the other (Noussaine) on this.

Nope, he doesn't do that. HAve you actually read Welti's paper, and Nousaine's articles, as I have? If so, I guess you've been misreading. Nousaine is usually only speaking about *one* sub, and only if you can't do more rigorous setup -- corner loading will excite all modes, and maximize output, which is a sensible way to go under such circumstances. See also

http://www.sonicdesign.se/subplace.html


You are confusing work on 'how many subs' and 'where to put them' with the issue of one-sub placement. Welti's work starts from the reasonable premise that multiple subs are better than one for 'evening out' low frequency rresponse over a multi-listener area, and found 3 optimal configs for them to fit the criteria he started with. (One of those 3 configs, btw, had four subs, one in each corners; the others had four subs, one each in the middle of each wall, and two subs, one each in the middle of front and back walls. Toole later came up with an even better one, one sub in each corner a 'virtual room' 3/4 the size of the actual room.)


Nousaine has experimented with multiple subs too, but his room model was different from Welti's. Nousaine found that one sub outperformed multiple, in an actual room (a 'non-sealed, leaky' one at that; Welti's was a virtual , sealed rectangular room with different dimensions than Nousaine's real one), and optimizing for three positions (Welti optimized for many more). Nousaine also used two different models at the same time, in his multisub test, whuile of course all of Welti's, being virtual subs, were identical. Nousaine's JAES preprint doesn't show the effect of corner location for multiple subs, though it does show the effect of stacking mutliple subs in one corner.



Floyd Toole himself recommends starting with corner placement for a *single* sub

http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/loudspeakers_rooms.pdf

"Always start with the subs as close to the corners as possible to take advantage of solid-angle gains. If you get too much bass and you have an equalizer, make the necessary measurements and dial in some attenuation. The result will be lower distortion and higher reliability. If the excessive bass is at one or more discrete frequencies, then it might be necessary to consider dealing with room
modes. And then the serious fun begins."


Harman's web page on speaker placement concurs:

http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/installing_loudspeakers.asp

"For the subwoofer, the ideal location almost always is a corner away from any open windows or doors. You may want to experiment with placement, but use a corner as the starting point and see how close you can get to perfection just by adjusting the subwoofer’s level and crossover settings. "

krabapple

We are getting some complaints about your posting etiquette. Please dont be so crabby.

Thank you.

Could you PM me with the substance of such complaints? I don't see how I've breached posting etiquette. Calling me 'crabby' is rather rude, btw.

Oh, really? As a fellow scientist, you know that after making such a claim, all you have to do is...prove it. You mgiht want to read the papers, too, and see how the tests were actually run.

And you must certainly ACKNOWLEDGE the artifacts that exist in sighted preference formation.

I certainly do acknowledge that. Both methods have their problems, and you basically pick your poison.

This is intersting, but way off topic, so I'll shut up now.

Since this thread is about a year old and we are straying(me included) to other things NHT,
maybe we should archive this one and have an all encompassing "Official" NHT thread?

If not, thats okay too.
I've learned a lot about speakers and audio in general on this thread.

I have to say that it is still interesting to me how few people have posted that they have bought the Classics and what their impressions are of them once they them are in their homes.
I guess a lot of people come here, read what the posters say, and make a purchase decision.
Probably without hearing them, which is weird to me.
I'm guessing there are those who buy the flavor of the week and go through a couple of speakers every year or two.

Got my room back together, but still don't have the grilles.
Still thinking the 3s might be a little forward sounding.

krabapple, take this as a second warning. Tone down your posts, you do tend to come off a little strong. Let's get this thread back on track please.

Kyser

Since this thread is about a year old and we are straying(me included) to other things NHT,
maybe we should archive this one and have an all encompassing "Official" NHT thread?

If not, thats okay too.
I've learned a lot about speakers and audio in general on this thread.

I kinda like this thread. I'd hate to see it get closed down. Maybe that's Krabby's goal? I hope not because it's not hard to do ;)

I still think he's got a good thread if he wants to start one, I just haven't figured out why he started it within this one :confused:

I have to say that it is still interesting to me how few people have posted that they have bought the Classics and what their impressions are of them once they them are in their homes.
I guess a lot of people come here, read what the posters say, and make a purchase decision.
Probably without hearing them, which is weird to me.
I'm guessing there are those who buy the flavor of the week and go through a couple of speakers every year or two.

Got my room back together, but still don't have the grilles.
Still thinking the 3s might be a little forward sounding.

I didn't find the 3s overly forward sounding. I upgraded from SB3s.

Since this thread is about a year old and we are straying(me included) to other things NHT,
maybe we should archive this one and have an all encompassing "Official" NHT thread?

That's pretty much about what it has become anyway, not that that's a bad thing though. ;) :D :cool: :p :)

Thanks for the kind thought Mark; it's always good to be around folks that understand such things. :)

Fortunately for me, the pain is not going to be long term now...

I just received an e-mail letting me know that my Controller and Power5 will ship tomorrow!! Glory hallelujah!!

Congrats!

Errr, trust me, they exist. I had to go the eBay route since I couldn't get them from anywhere else and the seller had 10 pairs for sale. He shipped the same day too.

Yep, I know of someone locally who actually HAD to get a pair of Fours off of ebay since the local dealer can't and/or won't get even the first single pair.

Of course, they went against me as I tried to talk them into Threes and Evolution subs instead. :p

As expected, John remains *'da man* for all things NHT.


Yep, John is Ric Flair when it comes to NHT.

Let's just hope he doesn't start yelling "WHOOOOOO!!!!!" though. :p

You aren't the only one that thought of using the Power2 for subs, but I'm not sure if it would work out as well for my U2es. I really wanted to (at least) double the power from 250w per pair now, but am not sure if the Power2 is designed to accommodate 12 ohm nominal loads, as would be the case when you take the normal dual sub parallel wiring adapter off and run an amp (or channel) directly to a single W2 cabinet. I know something like a Crown pro amp is designed to work with 12 ohms (+), but I'm not sure how much power is the ceiling for a W2 cabinet. I was thinking 500w is fine, but 1000w is probably pushing it.

Just get 2 more A1s, then you would have one for all four W2 units. You already have dual X1s anyway.

Or if using only 1 X1 for all four, just get a "y" splitter for each of the X1's L/R outs.

I've found that a NAD C270 works well on the B5s/W2s as well for "stereo" bass.

I didn't find the 3s overly forward sounding. I upgraded from SB3s.


I agree, the Threes are somewhat brighter than the SB-3s, but not overly so.

Just get 2 more A1s, then you would have one for all four W2 units. You already have dual X1s anyway.

Or if using only 1 X1 for all four, just get a "y" splitter for each of the X1's L/R outs.

I've found that a NAD C270 works well on the B5s/W2s as well for "stereo" bass.

Actually, I was planning to do exactly that before I bought the two U2 systems, but once I acquired them, I quickly realized each W2 cabinet is rated 12 ohms nominal impedance. All of the Evo subs use that same driver and wire two of those drivers in parallel, which presents a 6 ohm load to the amp. Therein lies the problem.

The A1 is a rated 250w @6 ohms by NHT. This very same amp is rebadged by Outlaw Audio and sold as their Model 2200 M-Block Amp and lists specs of 200w @8 ohms and 300w @4 ohms. Continuing this spec progression, it would appear the A1 only yields 100w@ 12 ohms. If my math is correct here, then running four A1s directly to a four W2s would actually result in less power (100wpc vs. 250wpc) than two A1s running pairs of W2s wired in parallel.

All of which leads me to believe that getting two 500w (or so) mono block amps to drive pairs of W2s (wired in parallel) might just be the best solution for maxing them out. The W2s are each rated to 125w max @12 ohms (250w @6 ohms), which makes me think 1000w might be pushing the drivers too hard. If anyone knows differently, please feel free to jump in here.

John: I would be very interested to hear about your experiences in driving Evo subs with more power. :)

I certainly do acknowledge that. Both methods have their problems, and you basically pick your poison.

This is intersting, but way off topic, so I'll shut up now.


Me too...apparently my postings are worded a little 'too strong' (but I guess Alimental's aren't). Anyway, pointing out the fallibility of human judgements is only fun until someone gets hurt, and we don't want that to happen.

;)

I am taking the 3s back today and will audition them again when the grilles are installed.

All of the DVDs that Ithink are recorded well sound great. Much better and more resolution than the Mirages.
CDs from Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler, Keb' Mo', etc.
DVDs from Diana Krall, Sting, Boz Scaggs, ya know all the ones people use for demo
are outstanding.

The discs that are a little livelier on my Mirages can be grating on the 3s.
SACD of the Police: Outlandos d'Amor has some annoying cymbals on certain songs,etc.

I guess these speakers are just unforgiving to poor or hot recordings.


My wife says these speakers are more piercing than the Mirages.
But, like most women she likes bass.

I hesitate to even write this until I give the 3s another chance w the grilles.

I am giving them the benfit of the doubt and hope that they are not as tipped up as the SuperOnes were.

Me too...apparently my postings are worded a little 'too strong' (but I guess Alimental's aren't).

Well, I don't have a lot of room to talk (and therefore wouldn't complain) but I'd say your words were a bit strong for

a) being completely off topic (and therefore a distraction)
b) coming out of nowhere like you *want* to cause problems.
c) an NHT owner, most of whom are shockingly mellow and humble people (most ;) )

Yep, John is Ric Flair when it comes to NHT.

Ummm, thanks, I think :)

Got my room back together, but still don't have the grilles.
Still thinking the 3s might be a little forward sounding.

The grills do seem to help with the forward part. I do think they're a *bit* forward in the upper mids and have expressed this to NHT. It's small, but I think it could help them fine tune it over time. I noticed that the Fours are a bit less forward and have a slightly different crossover. I'm not sure how far it deviates from the Threes or why, but the mid dome seems to take a small step back and integrate a bit better and cymbals have a little more "ding" in them. Subtle, but there. I try to find out the whys and wherefores, but Jack usually just ignores my questions and finding out through channels isn't any easier because I think he ignores *everybody*.

John

Also, I think most of us here have heard the Diana Krall "Live In Paris" DVD.
You know the part in "East of the Sun..." where she is playing the piano solo,
and she is humming/whining/groaning under her breath?
That comes through so clear on the 3s that it is obnoxious.

Alimental,

I am just wondering if I should reconsider the Fours again?
My dealer is getting a pair of Fours in Special Dark.

Perhaps the additional bass and the different crossover may take the edge off of the upper mids and lower treble like you said.

There is still something with the way the 3s handle a closed hi hat and a ride cymbal that is
a little over the top or something.
Almost like the sticking is too pronounced.
And the sometimes when a male vocalist goes up high it is there too.
Certain recordings of violins can also be hard sounding.

They seem to get the overtones and the spread in the cymbals right.
And I guess a good amount of "air".

You really hear a lot more character of the cymbal and it is also apparent
when the drummer varies the volume, either by mistake or on purpose.

... and she is humming/whining/groaning under her breath?
That comes through so clear on the 3s that it is obnoxious.

I wish I could hear that live from Diana herself, like less than a foot away from my ear. ;) :p :eek: :cool: :D :) :o

So, has anyone tried the Fours bi-amped with an X2 yet?

I wish I could hear that live from Diana herself, like less than a foot away from my ear. ;) :p :eek: :cool: :D :) :o

*laugh*

Aye. You, me and what, 20 million other males? Quite a queue, that.

I am just wondering if I should reconsider the Fours again?
My dealer is getting a pair of Fours in Special Dark..

Certainly worth considering. I think they are a bit better overall and hopefully, the Controller will offer further improvements, especially in the bass integration. Again, NHT knows of these comments and, as I understand it, hasn't stopped tweaking the speakers yet. NHT has often made small changes in products to improve them without calling them a "S2" or "Mk II" or whatever and making a big deal about it.

A little secret? The SuperAudios got an improved tweeter in the second year without any notice, they just thought they could improve the speakers a bit and did so without saying anything. Jack seems to love this dome array and I doubt they'll stop work on it as it will probably go in several other products over time.

Hey John (or should I say Nature Boy) ;) :p , do you think that the Fours with an X2 bi-amped configuration would help to significantly close the gap of the difference in bass performance between the Fours and T5s, or do you think it would only be more of a subtle, slight improvement at best?

*laugh*

Aye. You, me and what, 20 million other males? Quite a queue, that.

I wouldn't think it is obnoxious though. I'd love every second of it! :D

<snip> but Jack usually just ignores my questions... <snip>

I know what ya mean... It sorta reminds me of how you ignore my questions. ;)

What do I have to do, in order to get a response from ya Nature Boy: send frickin' flowers?!?! :p :D

Hey John (or should I say Nature Boy) ;) :p , do you think that the Fours with an X2 bi-amped configuration would help to significantly close the gap of the difference in bass performance between the Fours and T5s, or do you think it would only be more of a subtle, slight improvement at best?

I'm leery of using the X2. I think it would cause more problems than it solves, especially by deepening a dip between the midbass/woofer. I think using the Controller, while pricey, makes the most sense because they can EQ for the bass heft and any peaks/dips. The other option, IMO, would be to bi-amp.

I know what ya mean... It sorta reminds me of how you ignore my questions. ;)

What do I have to do, in order to get a response from ya Nature Boy: send frickin' flowers?!?! :p :D

Yes, I will marry you :)

Yes, I will marry you :)

LMAO!! Too funny... :D :D :D

John: I would be very interested to hear about your experiences in driving Evo subs with more power. :)

Oh. THAT question. Well, actually, to be honest, I haven't really done it! :o

I'm leery of using the X2. I think it would cause more problems than it solves, especially by deepening a dip between the midbass/woofer. I think using the Controller, while pricey, makes the most sense because they can EQ for the bass heft and any peaks/dips. The other option, IMO, would be to bi-amp.

If the high pass filter on the X2 is set as low as it can go, and the low pass as high as it can go, that will eliminate any double filtering, so only the Four's own internal crossover will actually be in play, correct?

So how could it deepen the dip between the lower mid and the woofer? :confused:

Oh. THAT question. Well, actually, to be honest, I haven't really done it! :o

I'm kinda surprised, as I thought you would have tried pushing the envelope, at least a little bit. If you did consider pushing the Evo subs some, what approach would you take, and how much power do you think is the upper end on four W2 cabinets?

If the high pass filter on the X2 is set as low as it can go, and the low pass as high as it can go, that will eliminate any double filtering, so only the Four's own internal crossover will actually be in play, correct?

So how could it deepen the dip between the lower mid and the woofer? :confused:

Well, I suppose you could do that. It would mess with phase though. That could be good or bad. Unless they have *specific* settings to say "here's how you get the best performance", I don't know that I'd do that.

Well, I suppose you could do that. It would mess with phase though. That could be good or bad. Unless they have *specific* settings to say "here's how you get the best performance", I don't know that I'd do that.

The phase could be tweaked from the X2 to find the best possible setting, by ear if necessary.

If you have all classics & evo subs (3s & U1), the X1 is still preferred over the X2 or am I missing something?

The X1 has the eq that the W1 needs built in. So, if you are using any Evo woofer you need an X1 or the NHT controller for them to work properly.

And to expand further, the X1 will NOT work on ANY other non-Evo passive subs period, such as the Four's, hence the X2.

where can I get a X2 from havent seen them anywhere?

Don't really know as I haven't seen them ANYWHERE either. This could really be just as fictitious as the A2 (125 X 2) amp.

I would prolly pick up an X2 for my 3.3s if I could ever find one. :mad: :(

where can I get a X2 from havent seen them anywhere?
Direct from NHT.

Fine, fine, I'll order and stock some! Geez, complaints, complaints...........

Fine, fine, I'll order and stock some! Geez, complaints, complaints...........

Mark me down for at least one for sure, and maybe even two. ;)

Ric Flair? NHT?? ............................................Noooooo! :eek:

Ok here it is folks

Its either

AZ's with a av123 x sub
or Classic threes alone

Looks to be the threes, but lower bass with a sub is tempting.

I vote for slow and steady winning the race as opposed to instant gratification.

Keep in mind the -3 db point on the Threes is like 45 Hz, so it will go surprisingly low even without a sub.

Pick up the Threes now, THEN get a sub later rather than wishing you really had the Threes later.

OR, if you will eventually be doing surround sound, you could get the sub/AZs now and then move the AZs to surround duty later after you get Threes.

I vote for slow and steady winning the race as opposed to instant gratification.

Keep in mind the -3 db point on the Threes is like 45 Hz, so it will go surprisingly low even without a sub.

Pick up the Threes now, THEN get a sub later rather than wishing you really had the Threes later.

OR, if you will eventually be doing surround sound, you could get the sub/AZs now and then move the AZs to surround duty later after you get Threes.

Great advice.

The Rock says...what do you think? It doesn't matter what you think! Get your candy axx to the dealer and get those Threes. :cool:

I could certainly live wit the bass of the Threes and be fairly happy..........but.

A electric bass guitar goes down to about 41HZ and while the 3s can surprise with their bass output there is sometimes not a lot of weight there on certain recordings.

I am spoiled because my current speakers are -2db @ 32Hz and -10db @ 25Hz.

The 3s have so much moore detail than my current speakers that I would go 3s and then save up the money for a lower cost sub later, or maybe continue to save and look at the 4s.

I am new to AVS, but I have been reading your posts on the NHT classic line. I NEED SOME HELP HERE. I am putting together a HT for my new house. I have a theater room, which is 12.5" X 17.5, 9' ceilings and the room is enclosed. I have been looking at a Classic Four system or a classic three with a U1 subwoofer. I really like deep HT bass. Will the fours (of course these will be bi-amped with NHT A1 and X2) give me what I want in this room or is this room size more suiteable for the three's and U1 sub? Or would bi-amping the fours cause more problems than it is worth? I really like the sound of them, but if I could avoid the complexity of bi-amping the fours I would definitely think about. I will be pushing this system with a pioneer elite receiver. Thanks

A lot of places can order the X2... Acousticsounddesign has them and also Garrets Smart Electronics have them in stock...

I am new to AVS, but I have been reading your posts on the NHT classic line. I NEED SOME HELP HERE. I am putting together a HT for my new house. I have a theater room, which is 12.5" X 17.5, 9' ceilings and the room is enclosed. I have been looking at a Classic Four system or a classic three with a U1 subwoofer. I really like deep HT bass. Will the fours (of course these will be bi-amped with NHT A1 and X2) give me what I want in this room or is this room size more suiteable for the three's and U1 sub? Or would bi-amping the fours cause more problems than it is worth? I really like the sound of them, but if I could avoid the complexity of bi-amping the fours I would definitely think about. I will be pushing this system with a pioneer elite receiver. Thanks

Thing is, by the time you bi-amp the Fours with an X2 and A1, you could have bought the Three/U1 combo. Now there are probably cheaper ways to bi-amp the Fours...

Also worth knowing, the U1 barely goes lower than the Fours (at least according to the specs). What you really get by going with the U1 is bass *quality*. They'll be cleaner and quicker, owing to the sealed enclosure. You also gain flexibility in blending them with the sats (although you get some of that by bi-amping the Fours), save some stress on your amp (ditto) and placement flexibility.

The Fours are a simpler and slightly cheaper solution, and if you're doing primarily HT, the bass quality should be good enough.

A lot of places can order the X2... Acousticsounddesign has them and also Garrets Smart Electronics have them in stock...Neither of them is authorized, though.

I am new to AVS, but I have been reading your posts on the NHT classic line. I NEED SOME HELP HERE. I am putting together a HT for my new house. I have a theater room, which is 12.5" X 17.5, 9' ceilings and the room is enclosed. I have been looking at a Classic Four system or a classic three with a U1 subwoofer. I really like deep HT bass. Will the fours (of course these will be bi-amped with NHT A1 and X2) give me what I want in this room or is this room size more suiteable for the three's and U1 sub? Or would bi-amping the fours cause more problems than it is worth? I really like the sound of them, but if I could avoid the complexity of bi-amping the fours I would definitely think about. I will be pushing this system with a pioneer elite receiver. Thanks


I have the classic four I am also running them with a pioneer elite 82 you will with no doubt have to bi-amp the 4s subs, without it there really is not much base. I have an addition velodyne sub for now but i plan on Bi-amping the subs in the 4s.

Just on looks alone still go with the fours as you will still be much much much happier you did compared to getting the 3s. Dont get me wrong nothing wrong with the 3s, I have them as rears, but the Fours LOOK AWSOME!!!! That alone did it for me any way either way it goes I think you would need an additional separate sub for either if you like low base.

I have the classic four I am also running them with a pioneer elite 82 you will with no doubt have to bi-amp the 4s subs, without it there really is not much base. I have an addition velodyne sub for now but i plan on Bi-amping the subs in the 4s.

If you don't have enough bass, something is probably wrong with the setup.

If you don't have enough bass, something is probably wrong with the setup.


I dont know what could be wrong with going from the receiver to the classic 4s they are even bi-wired.

What I mean by much base is that without them being bi-amped the 4s dont compare to the base of a dedicated sub.

The fours do look GREAT and I will be running this system with a pioneer elite 82 as well, but from talking to some NHT reps they were saying to go with the three's but with a U1 sub. The bass will be much better this way. I still don't know what to do. My room is 12.5X17.5 with 9' ceilings so it isn't huge by any means, but I want the speakers to sound amazing. I am going to use the three center and threes for the rears so now I just need to decide between the fours bi-amped or with the threes and a u1 sub...... This system will be used primarily for home theater.

The fours do look GREAT and I will be running this system with a pioneer elite 82 as well, but from talking to some NHT reps they were saying to go with the three's but with a U1 sub. The bass will be much better this way. I still don't know what to do. My room is 12.5X17.5 with 9' ceilings so it isn't huge by any means, but I want the speakers to sound amazing. I am going to use the three center and threes for the rears so now I just need to decide between the fours bi-amped or with the threes and a u1 sub...... This system will be used primarily for home theater.

The U1 (or U2) + Three combo is only $300 more than the Fours. Totally worth it in my mind. You probably can't even get the fours bi-amped for $300.

In that size of room do you think a U2 + three combo would be too much bass or should I stick with a U1? Also I was thinking about using the omni mount 20 for the threes to wall mount the fronts and rears. The fronts will be a little tricky for positioning so about how close to the wall can I get without messing up any of the sound?

In that size of room do you think a U2 + three combo would be too much bass or should I stick with a U1? Also I was thinking about using the omni mount 20 for the threes to wall mount the fronts and rears. The fronts will be a little tricky for positioning so about how close to the wall can I get without messing up any of the sound?

U1 and U2 both have the same cabinet volume and woofer complement. In the U2 it just happens to be split between to cabinets.

And thanks to the flexibility of the X1, you shouldn't have to worry about having too much bass.

Stay away from wall mounting the fronts if possible. They'll sound better on stands. A foot, hell, even six inches would be ok, but if you can get 'em a foot or two out from the wall, it'll help.

The fours do look GREAT and I will be running this system with a pioneer elite 82 as well, but from talking to some NHT reps they were saying to go with the three's but with a U1 sub. The bass will be much better this way. I still don't know what to do. My room is 12.5X17.5 with 9' ceilings so it isn't huge by any means, but I want the speakers to sound amazing. I am going to use the three center and threes for the rears so now I just need to decide between the fours bi-amped or with the threes and a u1 sub...... This system will be used primarily for home theater.
If you like the look of the 4s and obviously you like the sound, I'd go with the 4s...... definately.
Don't under estimate the power of cosmetics. Besides with the 4s you won't need separate stands like you will with the 3s.
Your Pioneer 82 should be more than adequate, especially if you plan on biamping with it.
Down the road you can always add a separate dedicated sub if you find yourself wanting for more bass.

dc

Is this a fashion show or an audiophile forum? For sound you just go with 3s & U1, no question. No one will tell you Fours sound better, they can't. Plus the combo system just looks so much more powerful if you care about that sort of stuff. :rolleyes:

Is this a fashion show or an audiophile forum? For sound you just go with 3s & U1, no question. No one will tell you Fours sound better, they can't. Plus the combo system just looks so much more powerful if you care about that sort of stuff. :rolleyes:
The 3s w/U1s sound better than the 4s?
Remember this guy wants the best system for a "home theater" system if I remember correctly.
The U1 subs, while very good music subs, just don't do it for HT, imo.
So he's still going to need a separate sub to give him WOTW the way it was meant to be.

dc

The 3s w/U1s sound better than the 4s?
Remember this guy wants the best system for a "home theater" system if I remember correctly.
The U1 subs, while very good music subs, just don't do it for HT, imo.
So he's still going to need a separate sub to give him WOTW the way it was meant to be.

dc

I think they're a fine sub for HT. Certainly I don't think there's anything the Fours can do that the U1 can't do, bass-wise.

The U1 (or U2) + Three combo is only $300 more than the Fours. Totally worth it in my mind. You probably can't even get the fours bi-amped for $300.

Fours retail at $1800, while the Threes and a U2 set are at $800 and $1400 respectively if I'm not mistaken.

There's, no way you could get an X2 and a power amp of some sort suitable for bi-amping the Fours for less than $400 more (not counting the cost of stands for the Threes), and while I do believe that an X2 in a bi-amped configuration would help bring the bass performance of the Fours closer to that of the T5's/U2's, it still wouldn't be quite as good.

So in short, I agree with Matt. In my view, it's a no-brainer to get the Threes and a U1 or U2 set instead of the Fours.

I think they're a fine sub for HT. Certainly I don't think there's anything the Fours can do that the U1 can't do, bass-wise.

BINGO! ;)

I dont know what could be wrong with going from the receiver to the classic 4s they are even bi-wired.

What I mean by much base is that without them being bi-amped the 4s dont compare to the base of a dedicated sub.

Do you have them set to "large" or sub off (or no)?

The 3s w/U1s sound better than the 4s?
Remember this guy wants the best system for a "home theater" system if I remember correctly.
The U1 subs, while very good music subs, just don't do it for HT, imo.
So he's still going to need a separate sub to give him WOTW the way it was meant to be.

dc

In that case, he should just get Threes and a SVS (or two) for maximum output and extension, and call it a day.

But if music listening is even anywhere close to 50%, dual U1s would kick @$$ for both music AND movies. :eek:

In that case, he should just get Threes and a SVS (or two) for maximum output and extension, and call it a day.

But if music listening is even anywhere close to 50%, dual U1s would kick @$$ for both music AND movies. :eek:
1st thing I heard that makes sense. Of course, 3s & U1 (or 2 U1s) for music + HT; for HT only, maybe an svs that hits 16-20, but overall you will be disappointed. Ever hear those loud ported subs down the street (or wherever)? That would be you, dont do it. :cool:

1st thing I heard that makes sense. Of course, 3s & U1 (or 2 U1s) for music + HT; for HT only, maybe an svs that hits 16-20, but overall you will be disappointed. Ever hear those loud ported subs down the street (or wherever)? That would be you, dont do it. :cool:

Have you ever even heard a SVS of recent vintage?

Trust me on this if you never trust me on anything else ever again, the subs in the Fours even if bi-amped along with an X2, or even DUAL Classic Twelves couldn't hold a candle to just one of SVS' cheapest, smallest $400-some dollar 10" sub.

IMO, they aren't quiet as musical as the EVO subs, but they certainly don't embarrass themselves either. And on output and extension, it's not even close.

BTW, also, the ports on the SVSs CAN be plugged, and STILL go down to 20 Hz. ;)

Thats what I'm saying, they're loud & beefy. Maybe thats not what you want for HT; so many choices... :)

Thats what I'm saying, they're loud & beefy.

Not IF properly calibrated. Then they are seamlessly integrated into the system, as virtually ANY good sub should be for that matter.

In that case, he should just get Threes and a SVS (or two) for maximum output and extension, and call it a day.

But if music listening is even anywhere close to 50%, dual U1s would kick @$$ for both music AND movies. :eek:
A friend on mine has M6s all around, 2 U1s and still had to pickup an
SVS Ultra for HT.
But he likes his couch, walls, floor and stomach to rumble when their suppose to, who doesn't :)
He tried to use just the 2 U1's, which he loves for music with his M6's, but...
no rumble

dc

I prefer realism to rumble! The U1 portrays textures and subtleties in the bass notes that no ported sub I've ever heard can do. I prefer a door slam to sound like a door slam, not like a tactical nuke.

If a door slam sounds like a tactical nuke, then the sub is not calibrated properly, as I'm sure you already full well know. ;)

A friend on mine has M6s all around, 2 U1s and still had to pickup an
SVS Ultra for HT.
But he likes his couch, walls, floor and stomach to rumble when their suppose to, who doesn't :)
He tried to use just the 2 U1's, which he loves for music with his M6's, but...
no rumble

dc

Which Ultra?

I know for a fact that even the "lowly" PB10 I/NSD can make you actually "feel" the cannonball shots bouncing along on Master and Commander just for an example.

This is pretty much what I have, dual, stacked PB10 ISDs with the T5 system, and a single PB12 Ultra/2 with the T6s.

BTW John, did you get a chance to look into ordering some X2s yet by chance?

I think I am going to go with the threes. I spoke with someone over at NHT and they even recommended going with the threes. The threes will leave you with more options down the road. If you bi-amp the fours and add a stand alone sub the bass will be a little out of whack, according to NHT. With the threes and a U1 you can always add another sub later. Now that being said I need to figure out what I want to do with subs. As I have said my room is 12.5x17.5 (not huge) but I want the bass to be very deep and quality.... Now that being said I have space issues so I can't go around throwing subs everywhere. If I went with the classic three system what sub would totally compliment those and give me the deep, but quality bass I am looking for? I was going to go with the U1, but from the sound of it the sub won't give me the deep bass I want, but it does provide the quality i am looking for......

I think I am going to go with the threes. I spoke with someone over at NHT and they even recommended going with the threes. The threes will leave you with more options down the road. If you bi-amp the fours and add a stand alone sub the bass will be a little out of whack, according to NHT. With the threes and a U1 you can always add another sub later. Now that being said I need to figure out what I want to do with subs. As I have said my room is 12.5x17.5 (not huge) but I want the bass to be very deep and quality.... Now that being said I have space issues so I can't go around throwing subs everywhere. If I went with the classic three system what sub would totally compliment those and give me the deep, but quality bass I am looking for? I was going to go with the U1, but from the sound of it the sub won't give me the deep bass I want, but it does provide the quality i am looking for......


Dual U1s would be MORE than adequate for that sized room. You could even add a third W1/A1 set with a single X1 if you really wanted to for LFE.

There is also a modification available for the X1 to extend the -3 db point of the Evo subs to 20 Hz at the expense of some slight output.

Hey John, I suspect I already know the answer to this, but I have to ask anyway, do you by chance know if the NHT pre-pro will still impose a fourth order bandpass on the Evo subs, and if it does, do you think it's probable that they might could eventually do a software upgrade to make them true second order like most sealed subs?

Also, what is the cost of the X2? I assume it's about the same as the X1.

Which Ultra?

I know for a fact that even the "lowly" PB10 I/NSD can make you actually "feel" the cannonball shots bouncing along on Master and Commander just for an example.

This is pretty much what I have, dual, stacked PB10 ISDs with the T5 system, and a single PB12 Ultra/2 with the T6s.
The SVS Ultra cylinder.
Who's talking about door slams rumbling :confused:

Hey John, I suspect I already know the answer to this, but I have to ask anyway, do you by chance know if the NHT pre-pro will still impose a fourth order bandpass on the Evo subs, and if it does, do you think it's probable that they might could eventually do a software upgrade to make them true second order like most sealed subs?

Not sure. What it's doing is propping up the response of the Evo sub to make it flat to 26Hz, then, I think, running a subsonic filter to keep it from over extending. I think. Not sure if the Controller does this, but it might. I have asked for the option of Evo subs with 20Hz or 26Hz extension *and* two EQ sets for the Fours, "small room", "big room". I don't expect it, but hopefully they'll consider it.

Also, what is the cost of the X2? I assume it's about the same as the X1.

Yep.

Not sure. What it's doing is propping up the response of the Evo sub to make it flat to 26Hz, then, I think, running a subsonic filter to keep it from over extending. I think.

Yep. At the very least, even if they couldn't make it a true second order, then a 20 Hz mod would still push it down a bit further, thus extending the range of the second order rolloff that does exist, no?

I have asked for the option of Evo subs with 20Hz or 26Hz extension *and* two EQ sets for the Fours, "small room", "big room". I don't expect it, but hopefully they'll consider it.

That just makes too much sense, much like Music and VT Series options as well. Maybe we'll see it all sooner or later.

FWIW, I just received a Power2. Pretty heavy for a digital amp, about 25 lbs. Yeah, I know, I know, "how does it sound?!?" Give me a little here, I just unloaded four pallets of NHTs......

Oh, the big question answered - it's as deep as the other two components in the series, so it should stack, even on the bottom.

Sooooooo....... you guys are okay with digital amps?

my question is genuine, not trying to start anything.

The bigger question for me, was how they were going to utilize the NHT Bus for the Power2 when it is paired with the Power5, as the Controller only has one NHT Bus out. It turns out that the Power2 has both an NHT Bus in and out. You just run a cable from the Controller to the Power2, then one from the Power2 to the Power5.

BTW, I did receive my Controller and Power5 this week, but I'm off for vacation in the morning and it will be couple weeks before I can get back to playing with my new toys. These pieces are far better looking than the photos show. It is a really clean (if not fresh) aesthetic that suits me fine. My Power2 is on order and I am hoping to have it fairly soon. Though it may be a while before I can get the rear surrounds wires run (read: major PITA), but it should really be pretty awesome sounding when I get it all sorted out. It maths out like this:

M6x7 + U2x2 + (A1+A1) + (Controller+Power5+Power2) = SEG :D

Two weeks? You suck! Fine! Go on your stupid vacation.

Why not chuck the A1s and grab another Power2? Might as well go whole hog on this one!

Oh, the big question answered - it's as deep as the other two components in the series, so it should stack, even on the bottom.

The bigger question for me, was how they were going to utilize the NHT Bus for the Power2 when it is paired with the Power5, as the Controller only has one NHT Bus out. It turns out that the Power2 has both an NHT Bus in and out. You just run a cable from the Controller to the Power2, then one from the Power2 to the Power5.

BTW, I did receive my Controller and Power5 this week, but I'm off for vacation in the morning and it will be couple weeks before I can get back to playing with my new toys. These pieces are far better looking than the photos show. It is a really clean (if not fresh) aesthetic that suits me fine. My Power2 is on order and I am hoping to have it fairly soon. Though it may be a while before I can get the rear surround wires run (read: major PITA), but it should really be pretty awesome sounding when I get it all sorted out. It maths out like this:

M6x7 + U2x2 + (A1x2) + (Controller+Power5+Power2) = SEG :D

WTF??? :confused:

Matt, how did you quote zaracsan's post before it was even posted? Are you psychic or something? :p :eek:

Sooooooo....... you guys are okay with digital amps?

my question is genuine, not trying to start anything.

Not me. I may eventually spring for the pre-pro, but I don't know about the amps.

That was weird... I was making an edit and... poof!! :confused:

Two weeks? You suck! Fine! Go on your stupid vacation.

LOL! I may have to sneak in a few elves to do some work while I'm away...

Why not chuck the A1s and grab another Power2? Might as well go whole hog on this one!

I thought about doing that, but I think I would end up less power (200w vs. 250w) by doing that. Read my post a few pages back on the sub amp math and reasoning, but unless NTH comes out with 500w mono blocks (or something similar), I would probably look elsewhere, as even four A1s wouldn't work out either. I still don't have an answer on how much power a single W2 cabinet will really handle.

WTF??? :confused:

Matt, how did you quote zaracsan's post before it was even posted? Are you psychic or something? :p :eek:

I knew you were going to ask that.

Not me. I may eventually spring for the pre-pro, but I don't know about the amps.

I will definitely let you know what I really think about them, but as someone who likes Class A/AB amps a lot, I will say it took some time for me to even consider going with Class D amps. The efficiency of Class D is hard to ignore. The P2 & P5 amps use the B&O Ice modules, so (for me) there was less worry as they are known to be solid performers. An NHT dealer I know (and trust) had some seat time with the P5 and Controller and he said it was an amazingly well matched system that sounded absolutely fantastic together. I will soon know soon if he was right.

... The P2 & P5 amps use the B&O Ice modules, so (for me) there was less worry as they are known to be solid performers...

Are these the same B&O modules used in the Bel Canto S300 dual channel amp? I'm considering this amp for my mains; but haven't read many opinions about it.

I knew you were going to ask that.

AVS is really the Matrix and you just witnessed a glitch. :eek:

Better hurry along, I think I just saw Mr. Smith... :D

Are these the same B&O modules used in the Bel Canto S300 dual channel amp? I'm considering this amp for my mains; but haven't read many opinions about it.

I not sure that it is the exact same module used in the Bel Canto, but the Bel Canto does use the B&O ICE modules. IIRC, there were some reviews on that amp on 6moons dot com. I think they were running a setup with Galo Refs.

Just Googled up a review there for ya: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/eone/s300.html

A couple of things to consider. Both Vinci Labs (they own NHT and build this new gear) and B&O are Scandinavian companies and are said to be working fairly closely. The sum of parts may be greater when you can get a pre/pro designed to work with a specific amp. The Controller can monitor and direct the Power5 (and/or P2) via the NHT Bus link. Vinci is an OEM supplier to several high end companies (Halcro come to mind first) and I'm told they (Controller, P5, P2) are priced well below what they could price them at under another name. Not trying to bang the drum too hard here, but the value seemed compelling to me. I'll report back more when I have everything running.

Another article from 6mons on the B&O ICE modules:

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/icepower/icepower.html

AVS is really the Matrix and you just witnessed a glitch. :eek:

Better hurry along, I think I just saw Mr. Smith... :D

Maybe John is really Mr. Smith! :eek:

Or is he really Morpheus? :p

Who's playin' who here? :confused:

I will definitely let you know what I really think about them, but as someone who likes Class A/AB amps a lot, I will say it took some time for me to even consider going with Class D amps. The efficiency of Class D is hard to ignore. The P2 & P5 amps use the B&O Ice modules, so (for me) there was less worry as they are known to be solid performers. An NHT dealer I know (and trust) had some seat time with the P5 and Controller and he said it was an amazingly well matched system that sounded absolutely fantastic together. I will soon know soon if he was right.

Refresh my memory here, what amp(s) did you have before?

The bigger question for me, was how they were going to utilize the NHT Bus for the Power2 when it is paired with the Power5, as the Controller only has one NHT Bus out. It turns out that the Power2 has both an NHT Bus in and out. You just run a cable from the Controller to the Power2, then one from the Power2 to the Power5.



You can also use a standard Ethernet hub or switch to connect them together.

You can also use a standard Ethernet hub or switch to connect them together.

Now that's clever.

Just in case you missed it, for all you NHT/NAD people out there:

NAD Debuts New A/V Tuner Preamplifier with HDMI Switching, Auto Audio Setup and Auto Calibration (http://avreport.com/nad-debuts-new-a-v-tuner-preamplifier-with-hdmi-switching-auto-audio-setup-and-auto-calibration)

Another article from 6mons on the B&O ICE modules:

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/icepower/icepower.html


B&O on B&O ICEpower modules & the companies who've licensed them:

http://www.icepower.bang-olufsen.com/sw1864.asp

Just in case you missed it, for all you NHT/NAD people out there:

NAD Debuts New A/V Tuner Preamplifier with HDMI Switching, Auto Audio Setup and Auto Calibration (http://avreport.com/nad-debuts-new-a-v-tuner-preamplifier-with-hdmi-switching-auto-audio-setup-and-auto-calibration)

There are some plusses/minus:

Cost - advantage NAD ($800 less than NHT's unit)
Availability - advantage NHT (expect at least 4-6 months to get a T175)
Upgradeability - advantage NHT (1.3 will be a retrofit option)
Performance with NHTs - advantage NHT (NHT specific contours)
Performance with other speakers - tentative advantage NAD (Audyssey)
Performance in bad rooms - advantage NAD (Audyssey)
Multi-room - advantage NAD (4-zone vs 2-zone)

On a good note, I expressed my reservations about current Audyssey software and they said that Paul Barton from PSB has been fine-tuning the software so that it has better results. I can't think of a better person to do this and, in fact, recommended to Audyssey several months back that they do just that. I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't filter up to other Audyssey products.

One thing that got my attention - 4 HDMI in. All the seperate HDMI switches out there (including Gefen), people are saying no DD+, and that blows. So yea, the Controller looks good, but only 2 HDMI in, kind of limited if you're serious about going that route, also no stereo sub.

Not nit picking, but have to compare all the +/- of every unit. :)

One thing that got my attention - 4 HDMI in. All the seperate HDMI switches out there (including Gefen), people are saying no DD+, and that blows. So yea, the Controller looks good, but only 2 HDMI in, kind of limited if you're serious about going that route, also no stereo sub.

The NHT has three HDMI, not two. I don't know who would need more than three. And the NAD doesn't have *stereo* subs, just two sub outs. At least, I'm 90% sure that this is the case, just as they have in the past. A $5 splitter equalizes that advantage.

Not pushing the NHT *over* the NAD, just sort of saying that they're both good units and that the NHT still has advantages deserving of the higher price tag, at least for some people and for NHT owners in particular. I'd rather have the NHT EQ than Audyssey, to be honest, unless they've really tweaked it well. I'm still very skeptical about trying to fix too much in DSP.

One thing that got my attention - 4 HDMI in. All the seperate HDMI switches out there (including Gefen), people are saying no DD+, and that blows. So yea, the Controller looks good, but only 2 HDMI in, kind of limited if you're serious about going that route, also no stereo sub.

Not nit picking, but have to compare all the +/- of every unit. :)

I think the Controller has 3 HDMI in

I think the Controller has 3 HDMI in That's correct; was referring to NAD M25. So then to get stereo sub from the Controller, basically have to bypass the built in EQ? Don't know if I could really give up the stereo feature of the X1, it's an awesome option. :confused:

Not pushing the NHT *over* the NAD, just sort of saying that they're both good units and that the NHT still has advantages deserving of the higher price tag, at least for some people and for NHT owners in particular. I'd rather have the NHT EQ than Audyssey, to be honest, unless they've really tweaked it well. I'm still very skeptical about trying to fix too much in DSP.

You mean in terms of acoustics? Because there are certainly some things you advocate DSP for :)

Speaker correction is a very 1-dimensional, easy solution, it just needs sufficient power. Trying to correct for rooms can do more damage than good. It's all how the DSP interprets the data it gathers and tries to fix things.

Speaker correction is a very 1-dimensional, easy solution, it just needs sufficient power. Trying to correct for rooms can do more damage than good. It's all how the DSP interprets the data it gathers and tries to fix things.

That's what I thought you meant. Just clarifying :)

Has anyone had any hands on experience with NHTs Classic 12 Sub? I have heard they have a lot of ground hum. Is this true? Any suggestions on subs that would work great with a three or four system?

BTW, it looks like the NAD will have conversion of analog video to digital video and OSD over HDMI. That's the NAD sales guy repeating what he thinks he heard from the engineers :)

Has anyone had any hands on experience with NHTs Classic 12 Sub? I have heard they have a lot of ground hum. Is this true? Any suggestions on subs that would work great with a three or four system?

It's *easy* to get ground loop problems with most any sub, but also easy to get rid of it.

Of course, the Evolution subs work exceptionally well. I still have a hard time believing anyone would want a sub with the Fours. Bass is just awesome.

Has anyone had any hands on experience with NHTs Classic 12 Sub? I have heard they have a lot of ground hum. Is this true? Any suggestions on subs that would work great with a three or four system?

I had the SW12, which I've been told is essentially the same (except for cabinet design).

I had a ground hum problem (which I haven't seen with other subs, but I've only used three in my system), but I just stuck a cheater on there, which may not have been the safest thing, but it certainly took the hum out.

For the record, I was never happy with the way my SW12 performed with my SB3 system. Upgrading to a U1 left me entirely satisfied (and with no grounding issues), and of course it works great with the Threes that I switched to as well. A lot of people will back me up on this.

A lot will suggest something more inexpensive like SVS.

I don't think anyone will really recommend the Classic Twelve. It's not bad or anything, but I think everyone just has things they prefer to it.

BTW, it looks like the NAD will have conversion of analog video to digital video and OSD over HDMI. That's the NAD sales guy repeating what he thinks he heard from the engineers :) Sweet! Hoping they delayed it this long to include HDMI 1.3

Don't think I'd ever use Auto Audio Setup and Auto Calibration; takes longer doing it manually, but worth the effort. Have to say the T 175 is just not sexy in any way, nothing like the masters or controller; just another black brick in the rack. :rolleyes:

Hoping they delayed it this long to include HDMI 1.3

Nope! Don't expect 1.3 until next summer on anything of any quality. By next fall/winter, I imagine there will be a v2 of these new models with 1.3, but it's way too soon.

Have to say the T 175 is just not sexy in any way, nothing like the masters or controller; just another black brick in the rack. :rolleyes:

That's partly why Masters is Masters and "Theater" costs $1000 less. :p

Do the new NHT amplifiers indeed use the B&O ICE power modules/technology... I can't find this in official print anywhere and they are not listed as one of the licensed manufacturers?

Yes, they do. It's the 500A module with NHT's own custom power supply and control circuitry.

Hey, B2R, have you have ever considered a 7.1 system with 4 VT3s, 2 VR3s and 1 VC3? Enquiring minds want to know ;)

Hey, I also got my mini-van, so I'm mobile :)

Yes, they do. It's the 500A module with NHT's own custom power supply and control circuitry.

Hey, B2R, have you have ever considered a 7.1 system with 4 VT3s, 2 VR3s and 1 VC3? Enquiring minds want to know ;)

I could actually do that since I have 2 pairs of VT-3s, but wouldn't using a VT-3 as surrounds be kind of like using a nuke to swat a fly?

It would give the bipolar option though, not to mention, being a truly full range speaker (DRAMACTIC understatement there). :p

John, are the XD amps similar to this with the B&O ICE?

Just in case you missed it, for all you NHT/NAD people out there:

NAD Debuts New A/V Tuner Preamplifier with HDMI Switching, Auto Audio Setup and Auto Calibration (http://avreport.com/nad-debuts-new-a-v-tuner-preamplifier-with-hdmi-switching-auto-audio-setup-and-auto-calibration)

Now THAT looks sweet! :D

That's correct; was referring to NAD M25. So then to get stereo sub from the Controller, basically have to bypass the built in EQ? Don't know if I could really give up the stereo feature of the X1, it's an awesome option. :confused:

I haven't really looked at the on-line manual in depth yet, but I'd bet you could still run the main L/R pre-outs from the pre-pro to the main ins on the X1, main outs on the X1 to the amps for the M5s/M6s (along with the A1 hookup of course), set speakers to large, and "tell" it from the menu that you have T6s or T5s. And then still hook up a U2 or U1 set (or even multiples of each with a Y splitter) from the sub out.

Is this all correct John?

So sc1000, how did you finally hook up everything to your X1? Weren't you adding a U1 or U2 set to a pair of T5s or T6s?

I haven't really looked at the on-line manual in depth yet, but I'd bet you could still run the main L/R pre-outs from the pre-pro to the main ins on the X1, main outs on the X1 to the amps for the M5s/M6s (along with the A1 hookup of course), set speakers to large, and "tell" it from the menu that you have T6s or T5s. And then still hook up a U2 or U1 set (or even multiples of each with a Y splitter) from the sub out.

Is this all correct John?

So sc1000, how did you finally hook up everything to your X1? Weren't you adding a U1 or U2 set to a pair of T5s or T6s?

I see no reason why you couldn't do this, but I think a lot of people liked the idea of ditching the X1 entirely and just relying on the Controller for all of its functions.

I see no reason why you couldn't do this, but I think a lot of people liked the idea of ditching the X1 entirely and just relying on the Controller for all of its functions.

True, I understand, but this is unfortunately the ONLY option if you want "stereo" bass.

At this price point, it looks to me like they could have put in separate L/R sub outs in addition to a sub/LFE out. :mad: :(

FWIW, I've requested additional subwoofer outs on future product. I can't say it would ever happen because it would require a chip that has this embedded, but you never know.

John, are the XD amps similar to this with the B&O ICE?

Similar. I have a feeling that future Xd modules will feature ICE, but I'm speculating. I don't think Power Physics was that reliable at providing enough amplifier modules. If they were, I'd imagine that the Power5 would have been by Power Physics. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

So sc1000, how did you finally hook up everything to your X1? Weren't you adding a U1 or U2 set to a pair of T5s or T6s? All 3s & U1s. Going to ask NHT about this X1 Stereo Sub, Controller single output deal. What is their solution for this. I mean, what it wasn't considered or what? :mad: Have a few questions that need to be answered by them & NAD before deciding which the right unit for me; 4 HDMI in would be better, no question.

I don't think you can *buy* a chip that does ".2", let alone more subs. Meridian can, but they have a custom software/chip setup. The reality is that this was taken from inspiration to finished in less than half the time others manage to pull off. Even late, it's a year ahead of some products.

I wish NAD would have kept the wraps on this until CES. I don't expect *any* of the new x5 models to come out until 2007.

All 3s & U1s.

That's right, I remember now.

So how did you finally wind up hooking it all up and placing the subs?

Going to ask NHT about this X1 Stereo Sub, Controller single output deal. What is their solution for this. I mean, what it wasn't considered or what? :mad: Have a few questions that need to be answered by them & NAD before deciding which the right unit for me; 4 HDMI in would be better, no question.

I really don't see any other other option other than that which me and Matt were talking about it, and in your case with Threes and Evo subs, that might not even work with the mismatch like that.

FWIW, I've requested additional subwoofer outs on future product. I can't say it would ever happen because it would require a chip that has this embedded, but you never know.

They really should use you as a consultant John.

Do you think Jack or anyone actually keeps up with this thread to keep their "finger on the pulse", so to speak?

So how did you finally wind up hooking it all up and placing the subs? Method 2 from the evo manual, sub 1 in left corner; sub 2 going in right corner.

Ok I am finishing up my new home and I have been spending way too much time(which is fun at the same time) trying to figure out my new HT. I have sold all my old speakers minus my velodyne spl-1200r and pioneer elite receiver. Now that being said I am looking at getting a pair of classic fours, three center speaker and iw4's to finish off a 7.1 system. From what I have gathered the fours are outstanding for music, but need a seperate sub to get good HT bass. I really like the looks of the fours, but is it a complete waiste of money to go with the fours instead of the threes? My main concern is the bass sound. By using the fours with 1 10" in each and velodyne 12" is the bass going to sound correct? I don't have much experience in this field nor with NHT's. My previous system was Kilpsch and I didn't like the bright harsh sound of the horns and I loved the warmth of the NHTS. My theater room is about 13 X 18 with 9 foot ceilings.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that the Fours are prolly better suited to HT than to music, and I think some others here would agree.

If you are going to buy Fours AND a sub, just get Threes on stands for mains and dual U1 subs with a single X1 crossover for about the same price, and you'll be set for movies AND music.

Not to even mention that the Threes would be a MUCH easier load on your AVR than the Fours when ran large, or full range. ;)

My problem here is I already have a great sub and I don't want to sell it. So my question is should I buy fours or threes? If money isn't really an issue should I go with the fours?

I have fours on order right now, but I am not sure if I should cancel and just go with the threes. I already have the three center and I am anxious to get my system going. Even though I won't be moved in till mid October. I am sure everyone here knows how exciting a new HT system can be.

Well, if $$$ is no object, and you already have a killer sub, I say go for it! Go all out and get the Fours, maybe even get an X2 and dual A1s or a NAD C270/C272 to bi-amp them with too.

Maybe even get a set of Fours for side surrounds too! :eek:

Hey John, I see you have a whole VT-3 set in right now.

How do you like the bipolar feature?

Couldn't you just imagine the Fours upper drivers with the VT-3's dual 10' self powered subs per side and a rear firing dome array too? ;) :eek: :cool: :D :p :)

Less than a stellar review for the Fours at hometheatersound.

Less than a stellar review for the Fours at hometheatersound.

NHT never gets "stellar" reviews because they're too inexpensive or not tweaky enough. Interesting first post though. We discussed this several pages ago. Fortunately, NHT buyers go by the sound, not what reviewers say. And, unlike Von Schweikert buyers, you don't see people buying $4K+ speakers, then turning around and selling them a few months later. IOW, better to have a less than stellar review and have happy owners that total disappointment and disillusionment.

Hey John, I see you have a whole VT-3 set in right now.

I do! I might also have a 3.0 front set.

How do you like the bipolar feature?

Personally? I don't much like it. BUT, I think it could have been done better too. To me, it added too much brightness and would have been better if the switch also padded down the front mid/tweet just a bit, so it didn't change the tonal balance.

Couldn't you just imagine the Fours upper drivers with the VT-3's dual 10' self powered subs per side and a rear firing dome array too? ;) :eek: :cool: :D :p :)

Yes, and I'm pushing for this. But with *variable* rear drivers and mono/di/bi options!

NHT never gets "stellar" reviews ....

Oh, I don't know about that. Having not just one, but two current models ranked as Stereophile Class A speakers is a claim not to many, if any, other brands can make.

Oh, I don't know about that. Having not just one, but two current models ranked as Stereophile Class A speakers is a claim not to many, if any, other brands can make.

Not at $4K and $6K! But even then, the reviews were positive, but not stellar. I have problems with Kal's review of the Xd because it omits things that the Xd does *better* than the Revel and B&W speakers, yet he didn't have a problem stating things that he felt they didn't do as well. Xd clearly out points these speakers in certain areas. Especially the B&Ws.

But still, I stand by my statement that the T6 is a high "Class B - full range" speaker and the Xd is "Class A - full range". But Stereophile never did make much sense to me. Of course, I'd throw most of "Class A" out on technical reasons alone!

Less than a stellar review for the Fours at hometheatersound.
Just read over the review and it sounded quite stellar to me:
"deserves a spot on your short list of home-theater speaker systems to hear."
Nothing really negative except the reviewer preferred the Von Schwiekert VR-1s to the Classic 3's, which I'd agree with even though I haven't heard the 3's... heard the AZs and SB3's both of which are great speakers but fall short of the VR-1's in several areas, imo of course :)

I've been tempted to try the 4's and 3C in my system but haven't been able to justify replacing my M6/L5 based system ;)

dc

PLENTY of used VR-1s for sale on Audiogon ;)

I guess I didn't think the part criticising the midrange sounded too good. And it sounds like the Four may have the same 'lean midbass' that was sometimes mentioned with the ST4 and 2.5s. I thought I'd read somewhere that it was going to dust speakers at several times its price, so reading that it didn't (for this guy) was a bit of a disappointemnt. I'd be interested to see someone compare it to some comaparably priced newer speakers like the Revel F12, Monitor Silver RS8, Energy RC-30 or 50 as well as some old standbys like the Studio 60 and 100 and Stratus Silver and Gold.

I guess I didn't think the part criticising the midrange sounded too good. And it sounds like the Four may have the same 'lean midbass' that was sometimes mentioned with the ST4 and 2.5s. I thought I'd read somewhere that it was going to dust speakers at several times its price, so reading that it didn't (for this guy) was a bit of a disappointemnt. I'd be interested to see someone compare it to some comaparably priced newer speakers like the Revel F12, Monitor Silver RS8, Energy RC-30 or 50 as well as some old standbys like the Studio 60 and 100 and Stratus Silver and Gold.To me, the reviewer didn't seem to know his a** from his elb**.

Acoustic music sounded great but rock music was weak in the midrange? Ah, Okay.

And it sounded like he didn't even calibrate his system initially. And I quote:

The Four’s natural reproduction of cymbals was crisp and quick, and bass lines were deep and solid despite the lack of a subwoofer, but the Classic Three surrounds didn’t quite reveal themselves in the rear. Whatever.

This had to be one of the weakest reviews I've read in a while. I think Soundstage needs to find some folks that are a tad more qualified than this guy.

To me, the reviewer didn't seem to know his a** from his elb**.

People qualified to actually write speaker reviews are simply too busy, have more important things to do and get paid *way* too much money to this kind of work. Unfortunately, most reviewers are simply hobbyists (if that!) who are working part time for a few $ per article. They're no more qualified than the people reading the articles and oftentimes *less* qualified.

Tony, did you ever read the TAS article about the new B&W Diamond series where the guy said that the Nautilus were so "revealing" that they showed him that 90% of collection sounded like crap? And that the Diamonds had some sort of filtering capability that removed all the grunge from his CDs? I almost laughed myself into the hospital. Not to pick on B&W, but it's one of the funnier examples of cluelessness I've ever seen in print. But "I couldn't hear the rears, I guess I should calibrate or something" comes pretty close.

I guess I didn't think the part criticising the midrange sounded too good. And it sounds like the Four may have the same 'lean midbass' that was sometimes mentioned with the ST4 and 2.5s. I thought I'd read somewhere that it was going to dust speakers at several times its price, so reading that it didn't (for this guy) was a bit of a disappointemnt. I'd be interested to see someone compare it to some comaparably priced newer speakers like the Revel F12, Monitor Silver RS8, Energy RC-30 or 50 as well as some old standbys like the Studio 60 and 100 and Stratus Silver and Gold.

Never trust a review. I often say "hey, these got a great review.....for what that is worth....." Even positive reviews don't often show the pluses and minuses of a speaker properly. Consider a review to be a "profile" at best. Sometimes helpful, oftentimes not.

The Fours very much *do* dust many speakers that cost several times the price, I can vouch for that. Just compare them side by side. It comes down to personal taste for most people. But, in terms of resolution, imaging, soundstaging, bass quality, etc, yeah. Fours won't dust the *best* $3000 and up speakers. But it will make them seem a bit overpriced. Most companies won't build a speaker this good for so little because they'd rather have a cheaper to build speaker at this price point and sell something that good at $3K at more.

Here's something to keep it mind. Reviewers will *never* say that a $1800 speaker sounds better than a $3000 speaker. Ever. The last guy that did that got fired more than 10 years ago, Corey Greenberg. They will tell you that it is almost as good as the $3000 speaker and clearly better than the $500 speaker. Wow. Tell me more :rolleyes:

In any case, the reality is, you have to listen for yourself. The reason why *I* think the Four is better is because it uses very rigid, very pistonic drivers that have wide dispersion and low distortion *and* it is a 4-way and 4-ways, done well as these are, have *big* advantages over 3-way speakers in terms of accuracy, distortion, output, realism, etc. The Fours have more in common with the $20K/pr Vivid Audio or $50K/pr B&W Nautilus (original snails) speakers than most any other current speakers on the market. You may like them or not, but they're pretty impressive and a helluva bargain. I wouldn't mind the bass being a bit tighter and more precise, but this makes them less of an audiophile speaker and more of a fun, let your hair down and boogie speaker.

... I wouldn't mind the bass being a bit tighter and more precise, but this makes them less of an audiophile speaker and more of a fun, let your hair down and boogie speaker.

John, I know you personally don't particularly like the idea of adding an X2 to the Fours because of potential nasty double filtering from dual crossovers, but wouldn't it do (or at least go a looooong way towards accomplishing) this very trick? Not to even mention the added benefits of bi-amping them to boot.

Besides, since the crossovers to and from the passive subs are already fixed (or set) in the Fours themselves, you wouldn't even have to engage the high-pass filter of the X2 at all in the first place. You would only have to run a set of pre-outs from the pre-amp/integrated/AVR into the inputs of the X2 and not even have to worry about running the high pass pre-outs from the X2 back into the amps, so that (the double high pass filter issue) is out of the loop and eliminated entirely. Then, you could just jack the low pass on the X2 up as high as it will go to 220 Hz and since the Four's own crossover point is fixed at 125 Hz that should pretty much effectively eliminate any double low pass filtering, no?

But yet, you would still control of everything else, gain, LFE gain (if applicable), phase, and boundary controls.

Someone with Fours, PLEASE get an X2 and try it with bi-amped fours and report back. How about you Pupton, weren't you going to do this?

My question (again) if you use a set of U2s with a pair of M6s to make a pair of T6 for L and R would you still add a sub for LFE. Something like a SVS ultra/2 or ACI Masetro.
Allen

My question (again) if you use a set of U2s with a pair of M6s to make a pair of T6 for L and R would you still add a sub for LFE. Something like a SVS ultra/2 or ACI Masetro.
Allen

Not if quality is your main priority. The Evo subs will make your pants flap, but only when they're supposed to do so.

John, I know you personally don't particularly like the idea of adding an X2 to the Fours because of potential nasty double filtering from dual crossovers, but wouldn't it do (or at least go a looooong way towards accomplishing) this very trick? Not to even mention the added benefits of bi-amping them to boot.

Yes, but then you'd be better off just getting Threes with an Evo sub. $2250 vs $2550, even assuming $150 for stands.

Then, you could just jack the low pass on the X2 up as high as it will go to 220 Hz and since the Four's own crossover point is fixed at 125 Hz that should pretty much effectively eliminate any double low pass filtering, no?

Maybe. Could have unintended other issues. I sent an e-mail to Jack asking specifics and was, as usual, ignored. They need a "Chief of Communications Technology" over there.

Someone with Fours, PLEASE get an X2 and try it with bi-amped fours and report back. How about you Pupton, weren't you going to do this?

I've got X2s on order, due to constant pressure and hassles from the peanut gallery :)

Not to pick on B&W,......

God when I read this "I almost laughed myself into the hospital." ;)

God when I read this "I almost laughed myself into the hospital." ;)

Hey, maybe they'll patent the technology and put it in the literature.....

"B&W Diamond, now with Bad CD Filtering™ technology!" (replacing "Bad CD Illuminating™ technology) :)

John, I know you personally don't particularly like the idea of adding an X2 to the Fours because of potential nasty double filtering from dual crossovers, but wouldn't it do (or at least go a looooong way towards accomplishing) this very trick? Not to even mention the added benefits of bi-amping them to boot.

Besides, since the crossovers to and from the passive subs are already fixed (or set) in the Fours themselves, you wouldn't even have to engage the high-pass filter of the X2 at all in the first place. You would only have to run a set of pre-outs from the pre-amp/integrated/AVR into the inputs of the X2 and not even have to worry about running the high pass pre-outs from the X2 back into the amps, so that (the double high pass filter issue) is out of the loop and eliminated entirely. Then, you could just jack the low pass on the X2 up as high as it will go to 220 Hz and since the Four's own crossover point is fixed at 125 Hz that should pretty much effectively eliminate any double low pass filtering, no?

But yet, you would still control of everything else, gain, LFE gain (if applicable), phase, and boundary controls.

Someone with Fours, PLEASE get an X2 and try it with bi-amped fours and report back. How about you Pupton, weren't you going to do this?


I use to run my 2.9s bi amped & bi wired with the jumpers off and full range signal running to them. Then I used a parasound 2200II bi wired to them it has 2 sets of binding post for each channel. I thought it made it sound better. I don't know what an X2 will cost but I will agree with John on this one. You could get a Berhring amp the 1500 one for around $200.00. It has gain controles and plenty of power. I have 1 channel of a 2500 driving my SVS 16-46 and it has plenty of power.
Allen

Yes, but then you'd be better off just getting Threes with an Evo sub. $2250 vs $2550, even assuming $150 for stands.

You're preaching to the choir here bro. I meant for those who already have Fours.

I use to run my 2.9s bi amped & bi wired with the jumpers off and full range signal running to them. Then I used a parasound 2200II bi wired to them it has 2 sets of binding post for each channel. I thought it made it sound better. I don't know what an X2 will cost but I will agree with John on this one. You could get a Berhring amp the 1500 one for around $200.00. It has gain controles and plenty of power. I have 1 channel of a 2500 driving my SVS 16-46 and it has plenty of power.
Allen

Yeah, but you still wouldn't have the phase and boundary controls, not to even mention separate LFE gain.

After getting used to them over time, I couldn't even imagine not having them now and consider the degree of control over you bass the X1 (or X2) gives you to be indispensable.

My question (again) if you use a set of U2s with a pair of M6s to make a pair of T6 for L and R would you still add a sub for LFE. Something like a SVS ultra/2 or ACI Masetro.
Allen

Do you mean dual U2s (Four total separate W2 subs)?

Regardless of whether you have a single or dual U2 set, you could just add another U2 set or a U1 along with another A1 to your existing X1 for LFE only if you feel you need a little more bass reinforcement.

Alternatively, you could either or also do the X1 modification to boost the -3 db point on the X1 to 20 Hz.

Do you mean dual U2s (Four total separate W2 subs)?

Regardless of whether you have a single or dual U2 set, you could just add another U2 set or a U1 along with another A1 to your existing X1 for LFE only if you feel you need a little more bass reinforcement.

Alternatively, you could either or also do the X1 modification to boost the -3 db point on the X1 to 20 Hz.


No I was talking about a single set of U2 just 2 of them. The ACI Maestro is a sealed sub that has got a lot of talk about SQ and if I am right I think it goes down to around 16Hz. I thought the U2 rolled off around 27Hz. So I was just wandering if anybody thought they would use a sub of this caliber on the LFE to try and get the last little bit of bottom end.
Allen

Someone with Fours, PLEASE get an X2 and try it with bi-amped fours and report back. How about you Pupton, weren't you going to do this?

Mark - I'm gonna try my friends Gallo Sub amp (has level, phase, etc on it)... if I like it, I'll add one more X2 order to John's list...

I was also thinking, couldn't you disconnect the 125Hz low/high passive xovers in the Fours, and use the active settings on the X2 to get the rolloff that best meets the room?

Mike

BTW - Both the Four & X2 manuals mention using the X2 with towers and make no mention of the possible side-effects...wonder if it assumes double-filtering, phase issues, etc can be tweaked with the X2 and therefore is not that big of deal? Thoughts?

No I was talking about a single set of U2 just 2 of them. The ACI Maestro is a sealed sub that has got a lot of talk about SQ and if I am right I think it goes down to around 16Hz. I thought the U2 rolled off around 27Hz. So I was just wandering if anybody thought they would use a sub of this caliber on the LFE to try and get the last little bit of bottom end.
Allen

I think that would be a little redundant to say the least, but then again, who am I to talk about that with SVSs only for movies and Evo subs only for music. :p

Mark - I'm gonna try my friends Gallo Sub amp (has level, phase, etc on it)... if I like it, I'll add one more X2 order to John's list...

I was also thinking, couldn't you disconnect the 125Hz low/high passive xovers in the Fours, and use the active settings on the X2 to get the rolloff that best meets the room?

Mike

BTW - Both the Four & X2 manuals mention using the X2 with towers and make no mention of the possible side-effects...wonder if it assumes double-filtering, phase issues, etc can be tweaked with the X2 and therefore is not that big of deal? Thoughts?

Mike, you could disengage the Four's own internal, built in crossovers to and from the passive subs if you really wanted to, but then you would have to use the X2's high pass as well as it's low pass filters in that case. Which, me personally, I'd rather keep the X2/X1's high pass filters out of the loop entirely if at all possible so that as pure of a signal as possible is going to the amps for the top end without the effects that the X1/X2 itself will have on it.

Even John has stated that the 125 Hz crossover seems to work very well for the Fours as the lower midbass is noticeably better than the Threes'. Of course, one could always simply cross the Threes over at 125 Hz too as well.

I really can't add anything else that I haven't already said about how to prevent if not outright eliminate any nasty double filtering.

I think that would be a little redundant to say the least, but then again, who am I to talk about that with SVSs only for movies and Evo subs only for music. :p

Well with this said is one better than the other. Would a set of U2 (just 2 subs) be better than the U1. Or do they sound the same.

My son has been using my 2.9 while I was using 3 M5 across the front. He is getting ready to get married and he says he want have room for the 2.9 so he gave them back to me. So just for fun I put them back in my system as my L/R and ran them full range. I found I could run them small and the bass from my sub was their. I would changed the settings to large on the 2.9 and the bass was better. Then I turned off the sub and didn't even miss it. I did this with my son and he said boy I wish I had room for them. So with this thought a set of M6 across the front with ethier 2 U1 or 2 sets of U2 for stereo bass. That is why I asked.
Thanks
Allen

U1 and U2 have the same driver complement and total cabinet volume. With the U1 you get less cabinet vibration due to the opposed drivers, but with the U2 you can place them so as to minimize the effect of room modes.

That aside, they should sound very similar for the most part. Pick whichever feature you find more appealing.

Well with this said is one better than the other. Would a set of U2 (just 2 subs) be better than the U1. Or do they sound the same.

My son has been using my 2.9 while I was using 3 M5 across the front. He is getting ready to get married and he says he want have room for the 2.9 so he gave them back to me. So just for fun I put them back in my system as my L/R and ran them full range. I found I could run them small and the bass from my sub was their. I would changed the settings to large on the 2.9 and the bass was better. Then I turned off the sub and didn't even miss it. I did this with my son and he said boy I wish I had room for them. So with this thought a set of M6 across the front with ethier 2 U1 or 2 sets of U2 for stereo bass. That is why I asked.
Thanks
Allen

U1 and U2 have the same driver complement and total cabinet volume. With the U1 you get less cabinet vibration due to the opposed drivers, but with the U2 you can place them so as to minimize the effect of room modes.

That aside, they should sound very similar for the most part. Pick whichever feature you find more appealing.


I could use either. With the U1 would it matter which way the subs where pointing. You know front to back left to right if it where between a speaker and the TV. The U2 could point to the listner and they would have to be stacked.
Allen

[QUOTE=mark russ]Not so fast there!

Interesting enough, the Three did MUCH better than the M5 or even the M6 IMO with the high pass crossover set at 50 Hz.

Hi Mark, just wounding if you could expand on the above comment as to why this is... did three play louder or more dynamic when you lowered the cross-over point any insite would be great.

thanks Neal

I could use either. With the U1 would it matter which way the subs where pointing. You know front to back left to right if it where between a speaker and the TV. The U2 could point to the listner and they would have to be stacked.
Allen

Orientation matters somewhat but will depend on personal preference and on placement.

I've got mine set up between my left speaker and my TV stand. I tried it at a 45 degree angle either with one woofer into the corner formed by the wall and the TV stand and one woofer out, or perpindicular to that (neither woofer facing into the corner).

But in the end I settled for having the woofers basically side-firing, but the blank face of the cabinet angled slightly to point directly at the sweet spot (in theory making the woofers equidistant from the listener.

But in my experience, it's hard to know without experimenting, so I don't think it should factor into your decision.

I have a classic three setup and now I am looking for a subwoofer. I have been looking at the U2. I really like deep bass you can feel. Will the U2 be adequate for this? Because of the size of the room I don't want to be stringing subs all over the place so I either want one KICK A#$ sub or two smaller subs (U2). I will primarily using the system for movies. I have been looking at other subs as well, sunfire, velodyne, svs, rel........