Many thx to all those here who have gladly shared of their experience and wisdom regarding NHT's speakers, and especially the classic 3's, helping confirm for me their awesome value - which lead to them entering my care just recently. No doubt there are countless others (who have/are reading this post anonymously) you have gifted who are also sending their thanks in some way - soooooo, rock on nhters!

Thought there might be an interest to know that The Perfect Vision dec. 06 magazine has released a positively glowing review of a classic surround set consisting of 4 fronts, 3C, and 3 surrounds. An identical digital version of the printed magazine can be subscribed to for free at theperfectvision or avguide web sites. Perhaps NHT has turned a corner and will now get more of the recognition in the mainstream audio/home theatre world they deserve. How long now before the down low on NHT really gets around and the ultra cool factor :cool: to "gotta have them" sets in across the planet??!!!

Welcome Omega to the board and NHT ownership.

Thanks for the tip on the mag.

Thought there might be an interest to know that The Perfect Vision dec. 06 magazine has released a positively glowing review of a classic surround set consisting of 4 fronts, 3C, and 3 surrounds.

About time! I didn't think they'd ever review an NHT surround system. I don't think they've ever reviewed one, which is like a convertible car magazine not testing a Miata.

Sorry I don't have enough posts to post a link but you can find the Classic Three review online now at steophile (dot) com. Link is up on the main page from the Nov. 2006 print issue.

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1106nht/

How much can you really trust someone who thinks that the SB-3, one of his self proclaimed "long term references" is ported though? :rolleyes:

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1106nht/

How much can you really trust someone who thinks that the SB-3, one of his self proclaimed "long term references" is ported though? :rolleyes:

Pretty sad he didn't even bother to check the specs or even look at the thing while he was setting it up.

Between that and the misquote about the Nola... whoever did the copy editing needed to pay more attention.

Not only that, in the next to the last paragraph, last sentence, he refers to the Nola as the NHT and the NHT as the Nola, completely twisting the comparison (read the last three paragraphs and see just how that happened, it's ridiculous). I missed the bass reflex part, that's just SAD. Sheesh. I mean, really, how amateurish can it get? Seriously, I think they're just inserting models and brands into randomly generated text now.

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1106nht/

How much can you really trust someone who thinks that the SB-3, one of his self proclaimed "long term references" is ported though? :rolleyes:

"But it has two tiny little "1/4-20"ports on the back! I mean, that's a port, right?" - RJR

"But it has two tiny little "1/4-20"ports on the back! I mean, that's a port, right?" - RJR

Hah. That's the best possible explanation.

"But it has two tiny little "1/4-20"ports on the back! I mean, that's a port, right?" - RJR

Yikes. Amazing.

At least you can't fault Atkinson's measurements.

Except for his constant disclaimer about the midbass bump. Surely there's a correction for that? In any case, there are speakers they measure that don't seem to have the bass bump :confused:

And to think we were making fun of that first guy who reviewed the Fours. You must admit, he is even starting to look more credible by comparision now. :o

I did put a post on the Stereophile forum about the errors, but we'll see if/when they respond.

BTW, Tony, *just in case* you thought my quote of RJR was authentic, I was just having a little fun on that one.

I did put a post on the Stereophile forum about the errors, but we'll see if/when they respond.

BTW, Tony, *just in case* you thought my quote of RJR was authentic, I was just having a little fun on that one.

Nah, I figured that part out. I'm just amazed that after living with a speaker as long as he has, he can think it's ported. I hope they're not paying him much (anything) to spread this type of misinformation.

The Stereophile site has been fixed, it now reads:

The Three actually bears no resemblance to the two-way SB3, which it replaces. It's smaller, and while it is still a sealed-box, acoustic-suspension design, the Three is a three-way speaker with a ¾" aluminum-dome tweeter, a 2" aluminum midrange dome, and a 6.5" polypropylene-cone woofer.

The Stereophile site has been fixed, it now reads:

I thought it was an Al coned woofer.

I'm starting to wonder if they ever even take possession of the product at all and just look at pictures and write about the sound it might have.......

And to think we were making fun of that first guy who reviewed the Fours. You must admit, he is even starting to look more credible by comparision now. :o

Haha! These reviews do nothing to help the credibility of online reviews! btw, I contacted NHT about the Controller, here is the reply I got. I should have asked how much it would cost and how the upgrade process worked:


"It will be upgradable to all those functions in the late spring"

Andy

Original email:
> Hello,
> I'm considering purchasing the NHT Controller, but I
> was wondering if it will be upgradeable to HDMI 1.3
> and Dolby TrueHD/DTS HD decoding. If not, I will wait
> for whatever new model you release.
>
> I currently have a pair of NHT Classic Threes, NHT 3C
> center, four NHT SB2s for surround and an SVS-PB10 ISD
> sub. My amp is a 7-channel Anthem PVA-7. Thanks for
> your time!
>

Anybody else up for trying the Threes floating around the country?

Almost up to that 5 post mark where I can include URLs.

Almost up to that 5 post mark where I can include URLs.

See http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/loudspeakers/NHTClassic2p1.php for the Audioholics review of a Classic 2 5.1 System .

Linzer,

You beat me to it.

The reviewer's impressions echo my audition of the Two.
I think he was a little more polite about this polite sounding speaker than
I. The midrange is recessed.

The Zero is the standout in the Classic line.
I don't think any of the others fully deliver on NHT's historical price/performance ratio.

The reviewer's impressions echo my audition of the Two.
I think he was a little more polite about this polite sounding speaker than
I. The midrange is recessed.

I think you'd have a hard time finding this in the measurements. Yes, they are a bit warm, but not as warm as the SB3 and much more refined and better imaging than the SB2 *or* SB3. I always felt the SB2 was pretty accurate, but a tad resonant. The SB3 smooth, but too warm. The Two gets it *almost* right, but can't be as revealing or as spacious as the Three. Few things are.

The Zero is the standout in the Classic line. I don't think any of the others fully deliver on NHT's historical price/performance ratio.

I'd maybe agree with the Zero, but, IMO, Classics are light years beyond the older NHTs. If you ask NHT, they'll tell you that it's very hard, especially with increased competition, to have the kind of massive, almost unheard of, value that the early models represented. BUT, looked at another way, look at all the "high-end" brands that have skyrocketed in price where NHT has not. Thiel, Vandersteen, B&W (!!!), etc. If you look at NHT as a mass market speaker, maybe it isn't the same as the days of the SuperZero, but if you look at them as high-end (and you should), what high-end brand comes close to the value? Maybe a few ID brands. Maybe. The Classics are about 50% more densely constructed than the speakers in their price point, aren't ported except in the low, low bass, and have good, nearly exotic parts. Whether you like them or not, well, that's up to you, but low diffraction baffles, 1.5" thick baffles, double bracing, rounded panels, poured composite driver frames? That's more exotic than anything at the price. I mean, I guess you could quibble about the value of a $40K Lotus vs a $400K Ferrari, but well, it's just quibbling.

John,

Judging from the pics in the review the Classics are extremely well built and have high quality drivers and components. Not to mention the extra cost of the piano lacquer.
Perhaps it is time for NHT to remove "value" from the speakers and lower the price point.

The new NHTs are more refined and detailed than the previous generations. I will give them that.

You brought up ID brands. I have been looking at ********** and have researched both the
inexpensive X-LS and the $1595 Minis. I feel like I am cheating on my dealer of 27 years.
Kind of stressful to think I may buy something without them.

Perhaps it is time for NHT to remove "value" from the speakers and lower the price point.

Not sure what you mean. You mean raise the price? Or make them uglier and cheaper? I'm sure they could put the same drivers in a cheap box and make them less special for $300/pr. But then they'd be last gen SB1s.

You brought up ID brands. I have been looking at ********** and have researched both the inexpensive X-LS and the $1595 Minis.

The Minis look cool. But, hey, look at it this way, the X-LS is a) ported, so that means less accurate bass, b) soft dome tweeter, so that means less resolving treble, c) about the same price as a pair of uses NHT SB2s.

As far as the Minis, they have a ribbon treble/midrange array, the Classic Fours have an aluminum dome array. The Minis have a 5" laminated cone midbass, the Fours have a 6" aluminum midbass. The Minis have an 8" powered paper woofer, the Fours have a 10" non-powered aluminum woofer. The Minis are Rosewood, the Fours are piano black lacquer. The Fours, however, have matching center and rears if that is wanted. Which is better? Ya gotta listen.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Classics have all the right stuff in them but if
I don't like the voicing then it is a no sale.
I am wondering if there is somebody who could modify the crossover to
get rid of some of the forwardness and tipped up nature of the upper midrange that
I am hearing?

I don't remember, have you heard the Fours? The Fours have an improved driver integration and voicing, IMO. That being said, NHT did seem to be aware of it and, this is my inference, that they weren't done tinkering with the design.

I'd very much like to hear the Fours with the Controller if the improvement it makes in their bass is anything at all like it was with the ST4s.

John, how would you compare the bass of the Fours with the Controller to the bass on 2.9s or T5s?

There is no doubt in my mind that the Classics have all the right stuff in them but if
I don't like the voicing then it is a no sale.
I am wondering if there is somebody who could modify the crossover to
get rid of some of the forwardness and tipped up nature of the upper midrange that
I am hearing?

Have you heard the Evolutions? It sounds like they just might possibly be more like what you are looking for.

john,

That's good to hear.
Do you think there will be v.2 or just a running change at a certain serial #, and will that be announced or done under the radar so only insiders know.

As an owner of SuperZeroes, Super Audio SB2's and now Classic Threes + 3C center, I have to say each new speaker was better than the last. The Threes have improved imaging and wider soundstage, the only real weaknesses of the SB2s in my opinion.

I am thoroughly impressed with the 3C center (which Mark Russ pointed out was a giant leap over its predecessor), so much so that I'm actually considering two more for a front soundstage of low-profile speakers to sit under a screen for a future projector purchase.

John, how would you compare the bass of the Fours with the Controller to the bass on 2.9s or T5s?

Well, I would say as integrated as the Fours, but a bit slower. Better integrated (or easier to integrate) than the T5s, but not quite as precise. Still NHT pushing for a Classic 5!!!! :)

Do you think there will be v.2 or just a running change at a certain serial #, and will that be announced or done under the radar so only insiders know.

It's NHT's style to make constant, sometimes notable improvements to their speakers without any announcement of any kind. The SuperAudio series got improved tweeters after the first 8-12 months from the Evolution. No one knew. That would be a "Series II" or something from most any other company. However, I'll try to keep my ears on it. I'm not saying anything will ever happen, they can't keep the Three in stock. They're shocked by how much it's selling (I tried to warn them!). Despite its minor flaws, it's way ahead of most of its competition. In fact, IMO, the fact we can talk about minor FR peaks and things like that is a testament to how good they actually are. In most speakers of that price, the small flaws like that are buried by other, more dramatic flaws. I don't mean to sound corny or over the top, but I do believe the clarity of them sort of makes it that much harder to hide what might otherwise disappear into the flavor of the speaker. I think the speaker is good enough that they *need* to keep honing it until there's nothing left to tweak.

Perhaps NHTs just arent' for me, but I am trying really hard to like them.
There are 2 things going on here:
The Classic Threes have significantly more energy in the upper mids and highs than I am used to with the Mirage M3s which are starting to sound dull to me.
So it is bit of shocker going from one to the other.

Certain recordings or particular songs I find hard to listen to on the Classic Threes.
And I don't want to spend $700 to "upgrade" to something that will sit silent.

Maybe I will pick them up from my dealer again and audition them over the
weekend.

I still haven't heard the Fours yet.

Perhaps NHTs just arent' for me, but I am trying really hard to like them.

Well, you shouldn't have to *try* to like a speaker, though I do recommend listening for a week just to get used to them if its a major tonal shift from your current speakers.

There are 2 things going on here:
The Classic Threes have significantly more energy in the upper mids and highs than I am used to with the Mirage M3s which are starting to sound dull to me.
So it is bit of shocker going from one to the other.

That would happen with most speakers these days. Mirages and most other Canadian speakers from the time were very warm compared to their own current efforts.

Certain recordings or particular songs I find hard to listen to on the Classic Threes.
And I don't want to spend $700 to "upgrade" to something that will sit silent.

Nor should you! Are you listening with a sub? They do need a sub to sound really full. Why not try the Fours? They're going to feel a lot better to you. The bass adds a sense of warmth, while not taking away from the resolution. They might still not be for you, but if you're used to a tower, a bookshelf, especially a reasonably accurate one, will sound thin and forward by comparison. And the little tweaks in the Fours mid will probably make a big difference for you. The Fours boogie!!!

The SuperAudio series got improved tweeters after the first 8-12 months from the Evolution. No one knew. That would be a "Series II" or something from most any other company.

So that explains why my newer SB3s sound so much warmer than my older ST4s.

BTW, there was a SW10 series II, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ
John, how would you compare the bass of the Fours with the Controller to the bass on 2.9s or T5s?

Well, I would say as integrated as the Fours, but a bit slower. Better integrated (or easier to integrate) than the T5s, but not quite as precise. Still NHT pushing for a Classic 5!!!! :)

:confused: Could you clarify this please. I didn't understand it, unless you meant to say ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark russ
John, how would you compare the bass of the Fours with the Controller to the bass on 2.9s or T5s?

Well, I would say as integrated as the 2.9s, but a bit slower. Better integrated (or easier to integrate) than the T5s, but not quite as precise. Still NHT pushing for a Classic 5!!!! :)

That would happen with most speakers these days. Mirages and most other Canadian speakers from the time were very warm compared to their own current efforts.

BINGO!!!

Yes, API offerings were warmer, but the Mirage M260 ($260 in '92) that I use
as my surrounds is quite a bit harsher in the treble than the M3s ($2500 in '92).
When I unbiwired my M3s last Summer I didn't have the right cable and used my M260s
as my mains and was shocked(there;s that word again) to hear thesecond I turned them on how bad cymbals and especially hihats sounded. no refinement at all.
Kind of one dimensional and grainy sounding.
I think Mirage bumped up the treble in this low priced line to get a buyer's attention.
I then moved aside the M260s and auditioned the Classic Threes. Talk about a
difference in not only inner resolution but outright resolution and refinement not to mention soundstaging.

Anybody else up for trying the Threes floating around the country?

How long do you think you'll be making this offer? I may be in the market for some bookshelf speakers sometime in the first half of 2007, and would be interested to hear these if that happens.

So that explains why my newer SB3s sound so much warmer than my older ST4s.

Could be! The newer tweeter was just a tad smoother and better integrated.

BTW, there was a SW10 series II, right?

Yes, but it was a different driver, different cabinet. Obviously different product, they couldn't sneak that by too many people ;)

:confused: Could you clarify this please. I didn't understand it, unless you meant to say ...

Wow. In my mind, I *knew* I typed 2.9 and yet Four is what came out. I think I've been reading too many Robert Reina reviews :eek: :)

How long do you think you'll be making this offer? I may be in the market for some bookshelf speakers sometime in the first half of 2007, and would be interested to hear these if that happens.

As long as there's interest. I was just surprised being here that so few AVSers had ever heard an NHT, so what the heck, might as well make a set available. They've been hitting several people a month, so that's a good way for people to hear them, I think.

Yes, API offerings were warmer, but the Mirage M260 ($260 in '92) that I use
as my surrounds is quite a bit harsher in the treble than the M3s ($2500 in '92).

One cool thing about NHT. They typically have two types of tweeters. Good tweeters and great tweeters. They don't do, as many companies do, great at $5K and up, good at $2000 and up, mediocre at $1000 and up and crappy at $1000 and down (or whatever, pick your price points, but that's what most companies do)

Is it just me or are the new NHT print ads fairly ineffectual.
I admit it does get your curiousity up to find out about the product,
but for somebody who does not have NHT on their radar they may
go right past them and not give it a second thought.

The new ads?!? Heck, show me ANY effectual NHT ad and I'll *give* you the speakers!!!!!

NHT, god love'em are absolutely *clueless* when it comes to marketing or advertising. I've written about a dozen ads for them and they refuse to use any of the ideas.

The new ads?!? Heck, show me ANY effectual NHT ad and I'll *give* you the speakers!!!!!

NHT, god love'em are absolutely *clueless* when it comes to marketing or advertising. I've written about a dozen ads for them and they refuse to use any of the ideas.

Their marketing on their web site is actually pretty good. No great, but worlds better than what they're running in print. Whoever set that up should be in charge of their print marketing. It would represent an improvement if nothing else.

They told me they hired an outside firm to handle it and that they understand audio. Heck, I could have done that for free. Oh well.........

One cool thing about NHT. They typically have two types of tweeters. Good tweeters and great tweeters. They don't do, as many companies do, great at $5K and up, good at $2000 and up, mediocre at $1000 and up and crappy at $1000 and down (or whatever, pick your price points, but that's what most companies do)


Or , from another's perspective, the two they offer could be described as "crappy" and "mediocre"........just a differant baseline. ;)

The new ads?!? Heck, show me ANY effectual NHT ad and I'll *give* you the speakers!!!!!

OK!!!!! ....YOUR THREAD, THIS ONE ... if you don't send me the classic threes now you are insincere.

NHT, god love'em are absolutely *clueless* when it comes to marketing or advertising. I've written about a dozen ads for them and they refuse to use any of the ideas.
I thought this thread was the longest running ad of theirs, AND THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN MOST OF IT......

Someone's been out for a drink! :p

Or , from another's perspective, the two they offer could be described as "crappy" and "mediocre"........just a differant baseline. ;)

You're right, probably too accurate to be "great" :)

OK!!!!! ....YOUR THREAD, THIS ONE ... if you don't send me the classic threes now you are insincere.

I'd be *glad* to, send me a line, I'll get you a pair over (but just to borrow!)

I thought this thread was the longest running ad of theirs, AND THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN MOST OF IT......

Eh, I like to write, but I think you're over estimating my contributions :cool:

Well with your predisposition to differant monikers, I am just guessing, but... I was actually just refering to your "ad copy" portions.

You're right, probably too accurate to be "great"

Well, with you being the "supreme referance" on what constitutes "accuracy" , I see that you like to define and use the term to your benifit, but in "this" instance , by your own definition, I guess I would agree that they may not be "great".

SORRY, you must know I'm just sort of funnin' :)

Schadenfreude, I noticed from your label title right under your screen name that you are a dealer. Without first taking a look at any of your previous posts, let me take a guess here, but B&W and/or Paradigm, right? :rolleyes:

Hey, whenever you're ready to hear those NHT Threes, call me!

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1106NC3fig3.jpg

$800 worth of NHT accuracy (+/- 2dB in the treble)

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1205802fig4.jpg

15x worth of B&W accuracy (+/- 3dB in the treble)

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1106NC3fig5.jpg

$800 worth of NHT horizontal dispersion

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1205802fig5.jpg

15x worth of B&W horizontal dispersion

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1106NC3fig7.jpg

$800 worth of NHT time alignment

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1205802fig7.jpg

$15x worth of B&W "time alignment"

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1106NC3fig2.jpg

$800 worth of NHT cabinet rigidity

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1205802fig2.jpg

15x worth of B&W cabinet rigidity

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1106NC3fig8.jpg

$800 worth of NHT spectral decay

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1205802fig8.jpg

15x worth of B&W spectral decay

Sorry, just sort of funnin'!!!!

Could be! The newer tweeter was just a tad smoother and better integrated.

Honestly, I think is a more dramatic difference than that. IMO, to my ears, it is VERY noticeable.

Wow. In my mind, I *knew* I typed 2.9 and yet Four is what came out. I think I've been reading too many Robert Reina reviews :eek: :)

LOL! :D

That's what I hoped you originally meant anyway. :p

Schadenfreude, I noticed from your label title right under your screen name that you are a dealer. Without first taking a look at any of your previous posts, let me take a guess here, but B&W and/or Paradigm, right? :rolleyes:

Don't worry, he really is having fun and turnabout is fair play since I give him so much crap. I told him he'd be welcome here, don't make me look bad!

Is it just me or are the new NHT print ads fairly ineffectual.
I admit it does get your curiousity up to find out about the product,
but for somebody who does not have NHT on their radar they may
go right past them and not give it a second thought.


Their marketing on their web site is actually pretty good. No great, but worlds better than what they're running in print. Whoever set that up should be in charge of their print marketing. It would represent an improvement if nothing else.

Plus 1 on both posts.

Don't worry, he really is having fun and turnabout is fair play since I give him so much crap. I told him he'd be welcome here, don't make me look bad!

Well judging by how you used B&W vs NHT in your graphs, I'm now guessing that my guess was at least partially right? :cool: ;) :p

Oh yeah, he's welcome here to keep on giving free bumps to NHT's "advertising". :p :) :D

Schadenfreude, I noticed from your label title right under your screen name that you are a dealer. Without first taking a look at any of your previous posts, let me take a guess here, but B&W and/or Paradigm, right?

Yes, good guess , B&W , not Paradigm , :rolleyes: did you guess Joel dealt NHT too (from his title)? You are really astute...I was trying to hide that fact.

Pretty images John, but I've done double blind comparisons, thanks.

Not that I care, but some might, so, would you like to referance the source(s) for the images you posted...just to give credit where credit is due?

God those graphs sound fantastic!!!

Sorry, just sort of funnin' :)

Yes, good guess , B&W , not Paradigm , :rolleyes: did you guess Joel dealt NHT too (from his title)? You are really astute...I was trying to hide that fact.

I think he caught on to the word "boutique" :)

Pretty images John, but I've done double blind comparisons, thanks.

Blind, yes, I believe so ;)

Not that I care, but some might, so, would you like to referance the source(s) for the images you posted...just to give credit where credit is due?

www.stereophile.com

God those graphs sound fantastic!!!

Yes, objectivity is a bitch, eh? :D

Sorry, just sort of funnin' :)

Me too! :p

Yes, good guess , B&W , not Paradigm , :rolleyes: did you guess Joel dealt NHT too (from his title)? You are really astute...I was trying to hide that fact.

Even if it was meant sarcastically, you really are giving me way too much credit here for being astute. As I said before, without even first taking a look at any of your previous posts, it didn't exactly take a physic to see from your axe to grind here that it was obviously a brand that you clearly feel is threatened by NHT. :p :D

Blind, yes, I believe so ;)



Didn't you mean deaf (tone deaf anyway)? :D

Yes, good guess , B&W , not Paradigm

Hmmmmm, not sure the difference!!! :p

Didn't you mean deaf (tone deaf anyway)? :D

No, he just needs to get out more and duck his head under that rarified air. I'm working on it.

No, he just needs to get out more and duck his head under that rarified air. I'm working on it.

LOL! :D

Well, I'm out of this little exchange as I don't want to help contribute to this thread being closed. I mean, after all, I don't want to kill NHT's "advertising" (which may just be his true agenda anyway). :rolleyes: But maybe he will keep giving free bumps to it. ;)

Wow, this thread has taken quite a turn this evening!

As long as there's interest. I was just surprised being here that so few AVSers had ever heard an NHT, so what the heck, might as well make a set available. They've been hitting several people a month, so that's a good way for people to hear them, I think.

Cool - I'll give you a holler when I get to that point. That is a very good way for people to hear them, and I appreciate that you're doing it. Thanks.

Even if it was meant sarcastically, you really are giving me way too much credit here for being astute. As I said before, without even first taking a look at any of your previous posts, it didn't exactly take a physic to see from your axe to grind here that it was obviously a brand that you clearly feel is threatened by NHT.

Oh, GOD....sorry, but considering the thread here and the two (excuse me, maybe ONE) of you, and the E-marketing ....I HAVE to say you two/one are the pot calling the kettle black.

I should though, out of courtesy (more than the one of you has shown), leave you alone again....if my FEW posts here have lead you to the belief that I feel threatened by nht , then what do the incessant dozens/hundreds of posts by Joel in EVERY B&W thread make you believe about what threatens you/him?

Overcompensation due to Inferiority Complex.......

We now return you to your regularly scheduled commercial.....

Overcompensation due to Inferiority Complex.......

the pot calling the kettle black.

I mean, after all, I don't want to kill NHT's "advertising" (which may just be his true agenda anyway). :rolleyes: But maybe he will keep giving free bumps to it. ;)


We now return you to your regularly scheduled commercial.....

:D

It's okay, I've had a few AVS nights were I had a bit too much to drink too ;)

Overcompensation due to Inferiority Complex.......

hmmmm, not sure that I'm the one that needs to buy/sell expensive speakers, but....okay!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled commercial.....

*infomercial*! Fact packed and brimming with reality! :D

Wow, this thread has taken quite a turn this evening!


It's okay though, I remember my first drink too ;)

Cool - I'll give you a holler when I get to that point. That is a very good way for people to hear them, and I appreciate that you're doing it. Thanks.

Not a problem, just give me a week's warning. There's maybe two people ahead of you at the moment anyway.

Oh, GOD

Overcompensation due to Inferiority Complex.......

We now return you to your regularly scheduled commercial.....

Dude, I remember doing a comparison between some B$W CDM 7NTs w/ sub and some NHT T5s for 2 channel audio, and I'm sorry, but the 7NTs just couldn't keep up with the music I was throwing at it. Even the salesguy noticed it and admitted it. I don't feel inferior at all. Actually I feel pretty damn good about my purchase. Now, maybe you outta run along back to the B$W forum...

After looking at the graphs and digesting the exchange that followed
am I to infer that both the NHTs and B&Ws are forward sounding?
......LOL.

Back to graph reading school!

The B&Ws are on the "boom/sizzle" side of neutral and the NHTs are a bit bass heavy, but otherwise pretty flat and neutral in the mids/treble, which would typically make them seem a bit warm, relatively speaking.

The only thing that might make them seem a bit forward is the very wide upper midrange dispersion if you have a lively room, and that there is a tiny bit of resonance in the lower treble and some ringing at ~15kHz.

Still, the point I'm trying to make to Schade is that, despite B&W's massive engineering staff, the $800 NHTs outpoint the $12K B&Ws in accuracy, vertical/horizontal dispersion, time alignment (such that it is) and comes shockingly close in cabinet rigidity and spectral decay.

This is the award winning $1000 B&W 603 for reference point of what a "good" spectral decay and cabinet rigidity test is considered to be like closer to the NHT's price point:

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/DM603fig8.jpg

Spectral Decay

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/DM603fig2.jpg

Cabinet rigidity

Here's a FR for the Mirage M3 for B4Z:

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1190Mi3fig4.jpg

Note how the entire upper midrange and lower treble is about -3dB to -5dB down from the rest of the sound. That combined with the soft dome will make just about everything else seem bright by comparison. Pretty much all the Canadian speakers were like that at the time.

Anyway, I know expectations can be high on the Three and Four sometimes, it's good to remember they both are really "budget" speakers that have *most* of the attributes of really high-end stuff. It's not that they're necessarily better, but that they are *embarrassingly* good. I can repeat graph after graph from just about any brand at any price that makes the Threes look just fantastic and show that they have *much* more in common with very high priced gear than affordable stuff. The only thing missing are distortion graphs, which Stereophile doesn't seem to like to do.

B4Z, *you* need to take home Fours. Taking home Threes is just going to be too much of a big shock. In fact, you might like the warmer Twos more than the Threes and you'd almost *certainly* like the older SB3s (a nice segue from the Mirages). You might really enjoy the Fours even though they will also seem notably brighter than the M3s.

PS - Schade, just funnin' ya :)

I have quite a bit of acoustic absorbtion in my room and don't find the Threes forward at all.

John and ericgl,

I was just trying to get you guys going with my last post.

If you remember from my posts last Summer I listened to the Twos and the
Von Schweikert VR1s at the same time. The Twos were down(my impression) a few db in the midrange and the VR1s were up few db in the midrange.
I perferred the VR1s, but they are $400 more.

And my 3 day home audition of the Threes was without the grilles.
Which could tip things up a little bit.

So, I need to get my hands on the Fours.

Sorry to keep rehashing all this but I REALLY want to like these speakers
and feel I should give them a fair shake.

What I haven't seen here is a lot of guys who have given us their impressions
with their favorite music, and how the NHTs do compared to their current setup or others they have listened to.

I was just trying to get you guys going with my last post.

Oh, like THAT is hard!

... but I REALLY want to like these speakers
and feel I should give them a fair shake.

If you don't like them, then why keep trying to? Forget about 'em and move on. :p

Oh, like THAT is hard!

I guess these posts we just made at the same time shoots down someone's theory that we are one and the same person under different names, huh? :p

Eh, there was 60 seconds in there, we could have changed identities :)

BTW, anybody see the prices of the new Paradigm Studio series?!? Holy crap, it makes the Classics seem like a ridiculous bargain. But then again, they gold plate their tweeter, so they *must* be awesome ;)

Somewhat if a noob as far as speakers go, so looking for a little help.

I've been casually looking around at speakers for HT setup and mainly looking at the flat panel offerings like the Energy Take, Mirage omnisat v2, Klipsch RVX-54, etc as I may have some space issues putting speakers inside a recessed wall area with my 61" RPTV.

I was in a local shop that sells NHT and had a listen to the Fours. The sales rep suggested that I might go with threes on a stand if the width of my TV stand doesnt allow for the Fours.

My question is....what kind of speaker arrangement would you guys here suggest for a HT setup in a 15 x 20' room. It will be in the basement rec room and currently using a Pioneer VSX 1015 for now.

Thanks,

Well, it depends on your space/placement limitations, but a pair of Threes with a ThreeC (and whatever number of rear Threes or iW4s) would make a lot of sense and match very well.

Well, it depends on your space/placement limitations, but a pair of Threes with a ThreeC (and whatever number of rear Threes or iW4s) would make a lot of sense and match very well.


After further review my TV is 58" wide and the recessed area in the wall is 71" wide and 20" deep.....so it looks like I cant really put a couple Threes inside that area as they are too wide. I may end up trying to mount something on the walls on either side of that recess in the wall.

I guess I could always mount them on a shelf above the TV, but that would put them approx 6 ft high in an 8 ft high room. Is that too high??

For the rears I was hoping to mount something smaller on the wall, but I guess you risk the tradeoff of performance vs aesthetics.

In the Energy line I was thinking of Take TWR up front with a Take LCR for center and 2 Take SAT as rear. Only issue is I really cant find a local dealer that has that setup for me to listen to. Any thoughts on how the NHT with 3 threes up front and a set of two's in the rear would compare?

Gotta say listening to the Classic fours on 2 channel was impressive. The rest of the room was Pioneer gear, the amp was a VSX-82.

Is the NHT warranty transferable?

I'm considering buying some used Threes for a stereo setup, and this info would be helpful.

thanks

Anyone bought the Classic 4 and later wanted to upgrade to the T6 or T5?

After further review my TV is 58" wide and the recessed area in the wall is 71" wide and 20" deep.....so it looks like I cant really put a couple Threes inside that area as they are too wide. I may end up trying to mount something on the walls on either side of that recess in the wall.

That's good anyway because you'd lose some of their performance.

I guess I could always mount them on a shelf above the TV, but that would put them approx 6 ft high in an 8 ft high room. Is that too high??

Ear level is best

For the rears I was hoping to mount something smaller on the wall, but I guess you risk the tradeoff of performance vs aesthetics.

You could do iW4s, they're amazing and match pretty well as they have the same dome array.

In the Energy line I was thinking of Take TWR up front with a Take LCR for center and 2 Take SAT as rear. Only issue is I really cant find a local dealer that has that setup for me to listen to. Any thoughts on how the NHT with 3 threes up front and a set of two's in the rear would compare?

Whoa Nelly! You'd have to get into Energy Veritas to match up with Classic Threes.

Is the NHT warranty transferable?.

I don't know if it's "transferrable" exactly. Maybe with the help of the dealer. Where did the original purchaser buy them? Maybe they can help you out on that.

Anyone bought the Classic 4 and later wanted to upgrade to the T6 or T5?

Not in NM. I've had a couple of people go the other way. The T5/T6 really, a downgrade or lateral in the mid/treble, but an upgrade in the bass, so overall, a wash. However, I could see someone *preferring* the T5 or T6 because of the total sound. But I doubt anyone would regret the Four, then go to T5/T6. The only thing I can see if you're accustomed to acoustic suspension bass, that can be a bit hard to give up, in which case you do Threes with the U1 or U2. I did have a customer that bought the Threes/Twelve combo and then said "the heck with it" and got Xd (which is what I'd told he needed to do in the first place :) ) I'm eagerly awaiting either a "Classic 5" or "Evolution II" using some of the Classic driver design and sealed bass. It's got to happen eventually.

What would be gained/lost w/ a acoustic supension woofer in the Four?

That's good anyway because you'd lose some of their performance.

Ear level is best

You could do iW4s, they're amazing and match pretty well as they have the same dome array.

Whoa Nelly! You'd have to get into Energy Veritas to match up with Classic Threes.


I really dont know if I have space to do the IW4's as the rear wall is just 2x4 construction next to the concrete foundation, maybe in ceiling. I guess I could mount the three's on the wall up front, but they would stick out in some relatively high traffic area.

The attached pic shows the recessed area I will gut out and to the left is the laundry room and right the mechanical room. Further on the right is more rec room and my office.....so a bookshelf speaker on a mount might protrude quite a bit. Any thoughts??

Not in NM. I've had a couple of people go the other way. The T5/T6 really, a downgrade or lateral in the mid/treble, but an upgrade in the bass, so overall, a wash. However, I could see someone *preferring* the T5 or T6 because of the total sound. But I doubt anyone would regret the Four, then go to T5/T6. The only thing I can see if you're accustomed to acoustic suspension bass, that can be a bit hard to give up, in which case you do Threes with the U1 or U2. I did have a customer that bought the Threes/Twelve combo and then said "the heck with it" and got Xd (which is what I'd told he needed to do in the first place :) ) I'm eagerly awaiting either a "Classic 5" or "Evolution II" using some of the Classic driver design and sealed bass. It's got to happen eventually.


I know it is not the same as designed as acoustic suspention, but have you tried stuffing the port? Just curious.

How far off the wall should the Classic 4 be?

Thanks

I'd say at least 2' minimum from side walls and a good 18" from the wall behind it.

I really dont know if I have space to do the IW4's as the rear wall is just 2x4 construction next to the concrete foundation, maybe in ceiling. I guess I could mount the three's on the wall up front, but they would stick out in some relatively high traffic area.

The attached pic shows the recessed area I will gut out and to the left is the laundry room and right the mechanical room. Further on the right is more rec room and my office.....so a bookshelf speaker on a mount might protrude quite a bit. Any thoughts??

iW4s work in a 2x4 wall just fine.

What would be gained/lost w/ a acoustic supension woofer in the Four?

You'd typically get a little more precise response and clarity combined with a bit better upper bass performance.

John, got a question for ya. What kind of output could I expect from the classic 3's in an 18x12x9 treated dedicated theater room? Let's say, giving it 100 watts? Can I reach 5-8 db below reference @ 10' and still have the control and proper dynamics? If not, how much wattage am I looking at, if they can even do it? I'd want to be crossing over at either 60 or 80 hz. I'd love to add the 3's to my auditioning list when the time comes, but I'm a little concerned about their size and output levels compared against bigger MTMs like the AT 4200e, Ascend 340, BESL Series 2, GR Research AV3s, Onix X-CS, or even the Rocket RSC200 (yikes!). Any other suggestions from the NHT line? I only have 2' of space from the back wall, minus the footprint of the speaker, so the 4's are probably out of the question.

iW4s work in a 2x4 wall just fine.

OK, that would work well for my rear and I could just do a 3C for center. That being said, my 2 options for the front would be to mount a set of three's on either side of that area where I will put my TV......or put another set of iW4's in the wall on either side.

Please let me know what you think of the pro's and cons of both setups.

Thanks,

John, got a question for ya. What kind of output could I expect from the classic 3's in an 18x12x9 treated dedicated theater room? Let's say, giving it 100 watts? Can I reach 5-8 db below reference @ 10' and still have the control and proper dynamics?

No problem. Threes would do it no problem, especially that low. You'd need a much bigger room to make it strain. In fact, they seem to play loud *better* than the M6s right up until they start to reach their limits and then the M6s keep on going a little louder, but that's *really* loud!

If not, how much wattage am I looking at, if they can even do it? I'd want to be crossing over at either 60 or 80 hz. I'd love to add the 3's to my auditioning list when the time comes, but I'm a little concerned about their size and output levels compared against bigger MTMs like the AT 4200e, Ascend 340, BESL Series 2, GR Research AV3s, Onix X-CS, or even the Rocket RSC200 (yikes!). Any other suggestions from the NHT line? I only have 2' of space from the back wall, minus the footprint of the speaker, so the 4's are probably out of the question.

Get a good sub, cross over at 80Hz. 100W of good power is *plenty* for that room, even with the lowish efficiency. Keep in mind that it's the front of the speaker that needs to be 2'-3' from the walls for best imaging. That doesn't change no matter what the speaker is.

OK, that would work well for my rear and I could just do a 3C for center. That being said, my 2 options for the front would be to mount a set of three's on either side of that area where I will put my TV......or put another set of iW4's in the wall on either side.

If you put Threes on either side, you will get better imaging and performance overall but you'd want to get the speakers out a way to get *all* of the difference. Either way, I'd gut that cabinet and get a nice big TV in there! If you go with iW4s, you'll still get very good sound, just not *as* good because you lose some imaging focus.

If you put Threes on either side, you will get better imaging and performance overall but you'd want to get the speakers out a way to get *all* of the difference. Either way, I'd gut that cabinet and get a nice big TV in there! If you go with iW4s, you'll still get very good sound, just not *as* good because you lose some imaging focus.


Thanks, I already have a 61" LCOS TV that will go in there and there is no room for speakers in it, so will either look at mounting something on either side of it on the 16" section of wall..........or going iW4 in those spots.

I think putting speakers on stands will just be in the way.

Thanks, Al

100W of good power is *plenty* for that room,

Key word in bold. IOW, NAD, Rotel, HK, Cambridge, Marantz, etc.

No problem. Threes would do it no problem, especially that low. You'd need a much bigger room to make it strain. In fact, they seem to play loud *better* than the M6s right up until they start to reach their limits and then the M6s keep on going a little louder, but that's *really* loud!

Good to hear. So the 4s won't buy you much if you get a good sub and integrate it well at either 60 or 80hz? Or, rather, 80hz?

The Fours are pre-integrated and have stereo bass and have marginally better midrange timbre than the Threes. With some work, you can make the U1/Three package a bit better overall because of the acoustic suspension bass. I wouldn't buy a Three with any ported sub (that I've ever heard) over Fours.

^^ And even just that much more so if you are using the Controller as a pre-amp.

If someone preferred a non-monopole for surrounds, what would you suggest that has a close timber to the 3s?

"non-monopoles" don't have accurate timbre or anything remotely close. So nothing would be close. However, the iW4s have such incredibly wide dispersion that they can do things that most speakers simply can't do. I would try Threes first before trying dipole.

Not in NM. I've had a couple of people go the other way. The T5/T6 really, a downgrade or lateral in the mid/treble, but an upgrade in the bass, so overall, a wash. However, I could see someone *preferring* the T5 or T6 because of the total sound. But I doubt anyone would regret the Four, then go to T5/T6. The only thing I can see if you're accustomed to acoustic suspension bass, that can be a bit hard to give up, in which case you do Threes with the U1 or U2. I did have a customer that bought the Threes/Twelve combo and then said "the heck with it" and got Xd (which is what I'd told he needed to do in the first place :) ) I'm eagerly awaiting either a "Classic 5" or "Evolution II" using some of the Classic driver design and sealed bass. It's got to happen eventually.

This would be pretty cool if NHT made an Evolution II that had the new classic sound. Then you could use the 2s and 3s mounted on the walls for surronds which would give you a smaller option than the L5. Plus give you an LCR with the classic upgrade.
Allen

"non-monopoles" don't have accurate timbre or anything remotely close. So nothing would be close. However, the iW4s have such incredibly wide dispersion that they can do things that most speakers simply can't do. I would try Threes first before trying dipole.

Don't speakers made with the drivers has some timbre matching, even for non-monopole surrounds? I can understand the roll-off in the highs... but the rest of the tonality can't be that different. I've got two rows of seating, so I want to spread the sound around.

I did not have the time to read this entire thread. I had a chance to listen to the Classic 3 line last weekend. Of all the speakers I have auditioned so far, I like the Classic 3's the best of the bunch. I a current owner of a pair of original Zeros and they are still serving me well today. I have a couple of questions that I hope someone will be able to answer for me.

First, and I don't know why I didn't look at this when I listened to the Classic 3's at the store, are the 3's sealed enclosures? How about the 3C? I think this was the case but I'm not positive and I can't find the information online nor can I find any pictures of the back of the 3's. This leads to second question. Can I use the Classic 3's in my entertainment center? I know they are bookshelf speakers but it seems that many bookshelf speakers can not be used in a bookshelf. I assume that the threes would be best placed on stands but it would be easiest for me to put them in my entertainment center.

Can someone also please summarize the rules for placement of of the Front L&R. How far away from each other, how far away from the side walls, etc.

I would appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks in advance.

"non-monopoles" don't have accurate timbre or anything remotely close. So nothing would be close. However, the iW4s have such incredibly wide dispersion that they can do things that most speakers simply can't do. I would try Threes first before trying dipole.

And what book of nonsense did you pull that little gem from, praytell?

Radiation patterns and timbre have NOTHING to do with each other. I swear it's posts like this that make me wonder why I bothered to subscribe to a hifi forum of any kind again. People are so uneducated when it comes to what does what, it's POINTLESS to ask an opinion unless you know whom it comes from.

Some of the best speakers I've ever heard are dipoles or bipoles (Magnepan, Martin Logan, Carver Amazing, Apogee, Mirage, etc.) No, they don't have accurate timbre or 'anything remotely close'. ROTFLMAO.

Oh wait, I see this is from the guy that thinks B&W is the ONLY speaker worth buying. Nevermind! I bow down to the King of loudspeaker knowledge!

I think I'll go back to doing something more useful with my time like actually listening to music rather than preaching about my ignorance....

And what book of nonsense did you pull that little gem from, praytell?

Radiation patterns and timbre have NOTHING to do with each other. I swear it's posts like this that make me wonder why I bothered to subscribe to a hifi forum of any kind again. People are so uneducated when it comes to what does what, it's POINTLESS to ask an opinion unless you know whom it comes from.

Some of the best speakers I've ever heard are dipoles or bipoles (Magnepan, Martin Logan, Carver Amazing, Apogee, Mirage, etc.) No, they don't have accurate timbre or 'anything remotely close'. ROTFLMAO.

Oh wait, I see this is from the guy that thinks B&W is the ONLY speaker worth buying. Nevermind! I bow down to the King of loudspeaker knowledge!

I think I'll go back to doing something more useful with my time like actually listening to music rather than preaching about my ignorance....


Maybe you should have went back a few more post. Then you would have found out they where talking about rear speakers in a 7.1 set up. Monopoles are the perferd speaker for this. I am sure people use bi-poles di-poles and tripoles, but on the THX site monopole are recomended.

As far as John being a B&W lover: :mad:
1 It makes me wander where you started reading this thread.
2 You are on your on because I am sure John's keybaord will be lit up for you.

But to answer your question about the timber matching and radiatng patterns. NHT doesn't make di-poles any more so you would have to use another speaker company bi or di - pole speaker. And they do have different radiating patterns than a monopole.
Allen

First, and I don't know why I didn't look at this when I listened to the Classic 3's at the store, are the 3's sealed enclosures? How about the 3C?

Yes, yes.

Can I use the Classic 3's in my entertainment center? I know they are bookshelf speakers but it seems that many bookshelf speakers can not be used in a bookshelf. I assume that the threes would be best placed on stands but it would be easiest for me to put them in my entertainment center.

Because of early reflections and bass reinforcement altering the tonal balance it is not usually recommended that bookshelfs be placed inside bookshelves. My Threes are ~10" off the rear wall and tonal balance seems fine, but the Threes are a wide dispersion speaker and really benefit from minimizing early reflections through placement and room treatments.

Can someone also please summarize the rules for placement of of the Front L&R. How far away from each other, how far away from the side walls, etc.

1 foot from the rear wall, 18 to 24"s from the side walls with the listening position forming an equilateral (more or less) triangle.

Oh wait, I see this is from the guy that thinks B&W is the ONLY speaker worth buying. Nevermind! I bow down to the King of loudspeaker knowledge!

I think I'll go back to doing something more useful with my time like actually listening to music rather than preaching about my ignorance....

Well I do have to at least give you credit for admitting it right after proving it with your very own words. :D

This would be pretty cool if NHT made an Evolution II that had the new classic sound. Then you could use the 2s and 3s mounted on the walls for surronds which would give you a smaller option than the L5. Plus give you an LCR with the classic upgrade.
Allen

But the L5s are specifically tuned for wall mounting, whereas the Twos and Threes are not, thus for wall mounted surrounds, the L5 is the better choice. Even the Threes owners manual suggest stands or bookshelves before wall mounting.

Speaking of Evolution II, Jack, will there be an eventual new series replacing the Evolutions?

Maybe you should have went back a few more post. Then you would have found out they where talking about rear speakers in a 7.1 set up. Monopoles are the perferd speaker for this. I am sure people use bi-poles di-poles and tripoles, but on the THX site monopole are recomended.

As far as John being a B&W lover: :mad:
1 It makes me wander where you started reading this thread.
2 You are on your on because I am sure John's keybaord will be lit up for you.

But to answer your question about the timber matching and radiatng patterns. NHT doesn't make di-poles any more so you would have to use another speaker company bi or di - pole speaker. And they do have different radiating patterns than a monopole.
Allen

Damned! :eek:

That was a verbal beat-down that John couldn't have done much better himself. :D

Eric, thanks for your reply. Here is my entertainment center with dimensions.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/keysman/remodel/2006_entertainment_dim.jpg

I'm happy to put my front left and right pair outside the entertainment center but I have a couple of issues to deal with I guess. First I may need to shift the entertainment center a little closer to the wall with the window in the background so there is a little bit more room on the left side of to place a speaker and stand. There is no wall to the left of the entertainment center. Will placing a speaker outside the entertainment center to the right put it too close to the wall with the window and cause the unwanted reflections?

Placing a Three on a stand at the right would also mean moving the sub further into the corner. Will that cause an undesirable build-up of bass in that corner? I can move the subwoofer out of that corner and move it further down the wall with the window. That will place the sub more in the nearfield. I don't know if that will be good or bad.

Where do the early reflections come from when a bookshelf if placed in an entertainment center? If the speaker is placed similar to the way I have those little Klipsch bookshelves in the photo can the entertainment center itself be a source of reflections? The speakers are projecting out and away from the entertainment center, are they not?

I can understand how the entertainment center could act in funny ways to reinforce the bass because it's acting like part of the speakers enclosure in a way but I don't see how it would cause early reflections.

Another issue for me would be the placement of the center channel. I really have no choice but to position the center inside my entertainment center above the TV the way you see the current Klipsch center.

I also realize that my room is not optimal with all the hard surfaces, the walls, windows, and the hardwood floors. A carpet is coming which will cover the floor between the entertainment center and the couch (out of the picture). There are also some window treatments in the works that will also help a bit.

I'm not trying to argue any of the points that Eric, mentioned. I just don't know what causes the reflection issue and I'm trying to learn.

Thanks again.

This leads to second question. Can I use the Classic 3's in my entertainment center? I know they are bookshelf speakers but it seems that many bookshelf speakers can not be used in a bookshelf. I assume that the threes would be best placed on stands but it would be easiest for me to put them in my entertainment center.

Have you heard the Evolutions? The M5 or M6 might be a better choice for you in this case (pun unintended :p ) with their boundary switches specifically just for this very purpose.

I have a pair of Threes in my office rig in book cases myself, and I'm very seriously considering replacing them with M5s instead.

Don't speakers made with the drivers has some timbre matching, even for non-monopole surrounds? I can understand the roll-off in the highs... but the rest of the tonality can't be that different. I've got two rows of seating, so I want to spread the sound around.

Well, if you use "bipole" they're not bipole, they're wide dispersion arrays. However, the iW4 and Threes have wide dispersion nearly as good as a quasi-bipole. If you use "dipole "speakers, they are out of phase and it spreads the sound around, but they're a mess when it comes to timbre. In theory, they'd have no sound at all coming from the speaker, but in practice, they're kind of mess sonically because they're not true dipoles when mounted on a wall. The NHTs with the dome array will spread out the sound just fine. You'd want to position the side speakers between the two rows up 3'-4' off the ground. Maybe 5' at most.

I keep coming back to the Classic.

I had my NHT VT-2 for 10 years, and found that they got very neutral, so I sold them.

I have looked at Paradigm, Dynaudio, and B&W, and for some reason I keep coming back to the Classic 4. What amazes me is they are twice the cost of the Classic 4.

Am I just stuck on NHT, or do I know a good value when I see it?

Also thanks to Alimentall for all the information on this line, wish you were closer to Los Angeles.

Michael

And what book of nonsense did you pull that little gem from, praytell?

I don't know. Where did you get the idea I was talking about anything but typical "surround" speakers in the context of this discussion?

Radiation patterns and timbre have NOTHING to do with each other.

That's ridiculous. Of course it does. Unless you have an anechoic chamber.

I swear it's posts like this that make me wonder why I bothered to subscribe to a hifi forum of any kind again. People are so uneducated when it comes to what does what, it's POINTLESS to ask an opinion unless you know whom it comes from.

Maybe you might try with actually asking real questions instead of acting like a buffoon with no clue as to the discussion at hand.

Some of the best speakers I've ever heard are dipoles or bipoles (Magnepan, Martin Logan, Carver Amazing, Apogee, Mirage, etc.) No, they don't have accurate timbre or 'anything remotely close'. ROTFLMAO.

Okay, now mount them beside you on the wall and aim the null towards you. How is their timbre now? Not very accurate set up like that are they?

Oh wait, I see this is from the guy that thinks B&W is the ONLY speaker worth buying. Nevermind! I bow down to the King of loudspeaker knowledge!

Now I know you aren't paying attention. How did I get confused with Pulliamm again?

I think I'll go back to doing something more useful with my time like actually listening to music rather than preaching about my ignorance....

That might be a good thing.

Have you heard the Evolutions? The M5 or M6 might be a better choice for you in this case (pun unintended :p ) with their boundary switches specifically just for this very purpose.

No I haven't heard them. I didn't even look at those, in fact I didn't even really see them on the NHT website until now. How do the Evolutions work in terms of placement inside an entertainment center? How are they different than typical bookshelves.

A quick glance at the NHT website, it looks like they can be placed horizontal or vertical. Since they are 17.75" tall I could place them upright in my entertainment center but I think a horizontal placement would have a higher WAF. The opening on side towers of my entertainment center are 19-1/2" wide so they would laying on their sides.

One more question, before I head over to the dealer for one last demo.

I am going to use the Iw4 for my rear speaker, what should I use for my 6 and 7 channel in a 7.1 system?

How did I get confused with Pulliamm again?




Many of us suspect he is just one of your personalities. Do you find yourself arguing with yourself?

One more question, before I head over to the dealer for one last demo.

I am going to use the Iw4 for my rear speaker, what should I use for my 6 and 7 channel in a 7.1 system?


IW4s or Threes. I am getting pretty jealous here.

Am I just stuck on NHT, or do I know a good value when I see it?

Don't sell yourself short, you're a cheapskate like the rest of us ;)

Have you heard the Evolutions? The M5 or M6 might be a better choice for you in this case (pun unintended :p ) with their boundary switches specifically just for this very purpose.

I do agree with Mark, you seem to have the ideal situation for which Evolution was intended. The Threes really like being away from walls more than Evolution which seems to function in less than ideal situations.

Don't sell yourself short, you're a cheapskate like the rest of us ;)

Amen!

Is there another thread on the Evolutions? I don't want to sidetrack this thread since it is about the Classics. I do have some questions though. Can I use the M5 without the external crossover if I want to keep my current sub. If I was going for the M5 I don't think I would add the bass modules and make them the T5s. It looks like you only need the crossover when you're using the bass modules or the U1. Is that correct?

Where can you buy the Evolution line? The online vendors listed on NHTs site don't seem to list them. I am just wondering how much they cost.

But the L5s are specifically tuned for wall mounting, whereas the Twos and Threes are not, thus for wall mounted surrounds, the L5 is the better choice. Even the Threes owners manual suggest stands or bookshelves before wall mounting.

Speaking of Evolution II, Jack, will there be an eventual new series replacing the Evolutions?


I thought their was a mount for mounting the twos and threes on the wall.

The reason for saying this is in my bouns room which is 15' x 22' the door comes in right where you would need to put one of the rear speakers and I only have about 12" of wall above the opening. I guess I could look at mounting them horizonally.
Allen

Is there another thread on the Evolutions? I don't want to sidetrack this thread since it is about the Classics. I do have some questions though. Can I use the M5 without the external crossover if I want to keep my current sub. Yes If I was going for the M5 I don't think I would add the bass modules and make them the T5s. It looks like you only need the crossover when you're using the bass modules or the U1. Is that correct? Yes again

Where can you buy the Evolution line? The online vendors listed on NHTs site don't seem to list them. I am just wondering how much they cost.

Retail is $450 for each M5, $600 for each M6. The M6 was rated as Class A by Stereophile.

Also, the L5 is also $450 each at retail, and is a true wall mounted speaker that matches the M5 perfectly as surrounds.

I thought their was a mount for mounting the twos and threes on the wall.

The reason for saying this is in my bouns room which is 15' x 22' the door comes in right where you would need to put one of the rear speakers and I only have about 12" of wall above the opening. I guess I could look at mounting them horizonally.
Allen

Omnimount, I believe it is, does make one for them.

broodwich,

This thread is about all NHT speakers, not just the Classics.
It didn't start out that way, but hey, this is the internet.

Broodwich,

To get the best possible performance from a speaker in an entertainment center, the front baffle of the speaker must be even with the very front edge of the entertainment center. Typically this means that the grilles will be sticking out. In your photo, it looks like your current speakers are about 1.5" back from this position.

Given how reflective your room is, I would recommend an M5 over a Three. The M5 has narrower dispersion and a flat front baffle. It will work better in your room and your entertainment center. The X1 crossover is only needed with the Evolution subwoofers (B5, B6, W1, W2). I wouldn't place your speakers to the L and R of the entertainment center. You will get too many early reflections off of the right side wall and the speakers will be too far apart.

For the L and R, you want to orient the M5s vertically. This is because they have asymmetric lateral dispersion designed to limit the midrange output that hits the sidewalls.

Jack Hidley,

Any plans for minor changes/improvements to the Classic line?

I perceive a little to forwardness(or something) in the upper midrange.
It has been alluded to in several reviews of both the Threes and Fours.

I will be auditioning the Threes for the second time in my home next weekend.
I didn't have the grilles last time I auditioned them. Maybe the grilles
will take the "edge" off.

Thanks in advance.

b4Z,

Sorry, but I'm not going to discuss any future product plans in a public forum.

We do listen to and consider everyones comments on our products. I've already noted your comments on the Threes tonal balance in previous posts.

Understood.

Thanks for the reply.

Mark, Jack, b4z, thanks for the info. I guess I have to head back down to the Bay Area again if I want to listen to the M5s. I think I saw them at Andersons where I listened to the Classic 3s. Does anyone know if there is a retailer for the NHT product line in the Sacramento? I looked at the dealers listed on the website but the only vendors listed in my area seem to be custom home theater installers. I'm not looking for that, just a good store I can trust where I can audition the speakers. It doesn't look like the M5s are sold online at least not at any of the three dealers listed on NHT's website.

I could pull my fronts out a little bit so their even with the front edge of the entertainment center. That won't be a problem. I could also mount the M5s vertical in my entertainment center if that would be best. I can adjust the shelves to accommodate the extra height of the M5. Thanks for that advice Jack. It's awesome that the Director of Engineering answers personal questions online. :)

- Todd

First of all, the guy said point blank:


If someone preferred a non-monopole for surrounds, what would you suggest that has a close timber to the 3s?


So we already know he prefers them and we also know that NHT doesn't make dipole surrounds, so obviously he's ASKING for advice in finding a dipole surround by another manufacturer that would be similar in tone the NHT 3's.

He got a non-useful response from someone that clearly doesn't like dipoles and from what little I've read thus far loves B&W speakers (which also don't make dipoles), so of course he's going to be biased against them.

Timbre has to do with frequency response. To say that a given speaker will not have matching timbre or 'anything close to it' without knowing the speaker and without knowing the exact room is just plain ignorant. The speaker outputs what it outputs. What reflects back to the listener in a side-surround setup is more room dependent. What it would do when placed in the rear surround position of a 7.1 system (assuming properly placed) is another story. On-axis response of a dipole can be VERY accurate under those conditions.

So sorry, but I stick by my reply. His response was not at all helpful to the question Lindahl asked. Yes some manufacturers DO make matching timbre speakers in dipole form (see PSB Platinum theatre system reviews). The review I read commented on how well the system presented a solid timbral image, despite using different sized/type speakers. They do all, however share similar if not identical drivers, which is your best bet as a starting point to finding a matching surround. You can also sometimes modify your listening room to get them to match if the response isn't to begin with.

Having not heard the Classic 3's yet, I could not offer an opinion on what dipole by someone else might provide a reasonable timbre match, but saying "NOTHING" will be close is pretty naive, IMO. I was able to get a reasonable timbre match with Carvers at my last house using an Energy center channel, for example. The Definitive surrounds were a little brighter, but that worked out well when putting them to side in that room as the higher frequencies were toned down by the room before it reflected back to the listening location, providing a reasonable match in that position. It wasn't perfect and that was evident with 5.1 music soundtracks (few that I have), but was almost unnoticeable with movie material. Given most of my music listening was with music on the Carvers alone, this was not a problem in that setup.

Many dealers I worked with were more than reasonable about loaning me a center channel to try out with the Carvers in my own room, etc. so I could find a match. I would imagine there are some dealers that would let you try out a demo pair of surrounds that you think might sound close in your setup IF that's what you really want. It could take time to find a match, of course.

So we already know he prefers them and we also know that NHT doesn't make dipole surrounds, so obviously he's ASKING for advice in finding a dipole surround by another manufacturer that would be similar in tone the NHT 3's.

Actually, I'm more interested in bipole-tripole-quadpole arrangements since, with two seating positions, I can't effectively place both in the null of a dipole to get the best surround effect. I'm basically looking for a wider dispersion to accommodate both rows of seating.

For John: Even if they had ideally wide dispersion, the 3s won't work since they're too deep (people would be banging their heads) and would be mounted on the walls. The IW4s won't work because of isolation issues. I'm mainly just looking for a manufacturer who has a similar tonal quality to the 3s, ideally in a bipole-tripole-quadpole arrangement for maximum dispersion.

He got a non-useful response from someone that clearly doesn't like dipoles and from what little I've read thus far loves B&W speakers (which also don't make dipoles), so of course he's going to be biased against them.

I think you mean NHT. Either that, or you're confusing John with Pulliam.

I would imagine there are some dealers that would let you try out a demo pair of surrounds that you think might sound close in your setup IF that's what you really want. It could take time to find a match, of course.

I do intend on auditioning, but I figured I might be able to do some filtering first via someone who's very familiar with NHT's offerings.

Yeah, I think MagnumX is thinking about somebody else.
Alimental is the pied piper of NHT, not B&W.

As a child of '70s and somebody who got into audio in a major way in '79,
I have a hard time wrapping my brain around th fact that there are major cities(Sacramento) in the US that don't carry brands like NHT.

The business has changed so much that it is almost unrecognizable now.
The lack of local dealers HAS to be affecting audio related companies.
But yet, it seems like there are "new" companies every year.

First of all, the guy said point blank:



So we already know he prefers them and we also know that NHT doesn't make dipole surrounds, so obviously he's ASKING for advice in finding a dipole surround by another manufacturer that would be similar in tone the NHT 3's.

He got a non-useful response from someone that clearly doesn't like dipoles and from what little I've read thus far loves B&W speakers (which also don't make dipoles), so of course he's going to be biased against them.

Timbre has to do with frequency response. To say that a given speaker will not have matching timbre or 'anything close to it' without knowing the speaker and without knowing the exact room is just plain ignorant. The speaker outputs what it outputs. What reflects back to the listener in a side-surround setup is more room dependent. What it would do when placed in the rear surround position of a 7.1 system (assuming properly placed) is another story. On-axis response of a dipole can be VERY accurate under those conditions.

So sorry, but I stick by my reply. His response was not at all helpful to the question Lindahl asked. Yes some manufacturers DO make matching timbre speakers in dipole form (see PSB Platinum theatre system reviews). The review I read commented on how well the system presented a solid timbral image, despite using different sized/type speakers. They do all, however share similar if not identical drivers, which is your best bet as a starting point to finding a matching surround. You can also sometimes modify your listening room to get them to match if the response isn't to begin with.



I must admit that I thought they were talking about the rear surrounds, but he could have been talking about the side surrounds. I think if you think about side surrounds timber may not be as important for them because of the null they will give off. My response to you on that may have been a little off but your tone on bashing John is what threw it off.

As far as John loving B&W ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .....................................
............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ......
When Hell freezes over and that may not even be enough.
Allen

Actually, I'm more interested in bipole-tripole-quadpole arrangements since, with two seating positions, I can't effectively place both in the null of a dipole to get the best surround effect. I'm basically looking for a wider dispersion to accommodate both rows of seating.



I thought about the M&K Tri-poles. Then may give you what you want with the 2 rows. But they cost a good bit. I have heard these set up in a theater and they sounded pretty good.
Allen

As a child of '70s and somebody who got into audio in a major way in '79,
I have a hard time wrapping my brain around th fact that there are major cities(Sacramento) in the US that don't carry brands like NHT.

The business has changed so much that it is almost unrecognizable now. The lack of local dealers HAS to be affecting audio related companies. But yet, it seems like there are "new" companies every year.

I could be wrong about that but I just don't see any authorized dealers listed on NHTs website that are in my local area. There are a few decent places to buy audio and home theater in the area but not NHT. It is quite a change, I got my NHT Zeros at a local Macy's store if you can believe that.

broodwich nice room you have their.

I was think like Jack go with the M5 and put them on the first shelf. Adjust it to the height of a P5. I would center it up on the shelf and slide it all the way to the front edge of the shelf.
Allen

Thanks Allen.

- Todd

broodwich nice room you have their.




I agree. Was the EC custom built? If so, can you contact the cabinet maker?

broodwich,

One of the things I was tinking of was too take off the shelves on either side completely.
You would pick up enough space to properly place most kinds ofspeakers.
Your EC would have a more vertical look (a negative?)and the room would look bigger.

Thanks for the additional comments. I don't think pulling the towers off the sides of the Entertainment center is an option. The two towers support the shelf above the TV and the "roof" across the middle section. It's a good idea but it's not really something I'm willing to do. I love my entertainment center, it's my design and was built by my neighbor. He did an awesome job. Pulling it apart would be sad for me and even sadder for my neighbor who built the whole thing. Eric, I don't know if my neighbor would be up for building another EC but I could ask him.

I guess I didn't really take into consideration the fact that the design was going to make it difficult to find speakers that will work with the design. I didn't take that into consideration because I thought I was going to be using the HSU VT-12 (http://www.hsustore.com/vt12.html) system. Silly me, what was I thinking. :confused: I should have known that the little VT-12 system wasn't going to be good enough for my tastes. I think I was blinded by marketing hype and some really favorable reviews. It's not that there is anything wrong with the VT-12 system it's just not adequate for a room my size. No matter how you slice it the Ventriloquist system from HSU just can't deliver that mid-bass punch that I'm looking for.

Can anyone explain what the Boundary control on the M5 and M6 really does? Does it switch to a different internal crossover network? How does it work it's magic? Another question, it seems like the design of the M5 and M6 is very close, does the M5 use the same type of drivers that are in the M6. In other words are the woofers and the midrange the same construction type? It looks like the woofers are some type of plastic composite, is that right?

It seems like I'm going to need to find a set of M5s to audition.

Here is the same photo of my EC without all the dimensions on it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/keysman/remodel/2006-11-28_08-07-27_entertainment.jpg

Here is an earlier shot that gives you a better idea of how the couch is positioned.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/keysman/remodel/ec01.jpg

Sorry for the noise in that shot. I was just holding the camera instead of using a tripod so I had to bump up the ISO. Do you ever notice how you'll watch anything that's on when you first get your HDTV, so long as it's in High Def? :)

When the boundary switch of the M5/M6 is in the 0 position, the speaker has a flat response when it is away from boundaries. When the switch is in the 1 position, the response of the speaker is shelved down 6dB below above 350Hz. This compensates for the fact that when the speaker is placed near a wall, the wall has exactly the opposite effect.

The switch modifies the topology of the woofer crossover section.

All of this, and a lot more, is explained in section 11.3 of the owner's manual below:
http://nhthifi.com/2006/manuals/current/EvolutionUserGuide.pdf

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

The woofer cones for the M5 and M6 are both a polypropylene sandwich. So is the midrange in the M6. The M5 midrange uses a paper cone. Both speakers use the same tweeter.

So we already know he prefers them and we also know that NHT doesn't make dipole surrounds, so obviously he's ASKING for advice in finding a dipole surround by another manufacturer that would be similar in tone the NHT 3's.

It's not going to happen. Dipoles as set up for surround sound, by definition, won't have a timbre similar to a monopole. Might as well ask for fish that tastes like steak.

He got a non-useful response from someone that clearly doesn't like dipoles and from what little I've read thus far loves B&W speakers (which also don't make dipoles), so of course he's going to be biased against them.

I think you're very confused. I'm largely known as B&W's biggest critic.

Timbre has to do with frequency response. To say that a given speaker will not have matching timbre or 'anything close to it' without knowing the speaker and without knowing the exact room is just plain ignorant.

Not understanding how dipole surrounds function and then acting like I'm the one that does not is just plain ignorant.

So sorry, but I stick by my reply. His response was not at all helpful to the question Lindahl asked.

*Maybe* not helpful. But it is an appropriate response. Once you get into dipoles, timbre matching isn't a huge primary goal as none of them will match. Not even if it said NHT. Not even if it had the same drivers. Of course, I'd opt for matching drivers if it were available, just to get close. Maybe if Energy made a Veritas dipole rear.

Yes some manufacturers DO make matching timbre speakers in dipole form (see PSB Platinum theatre system reviews).

I think you need to look at the measurements of dipole speakers and then compared them to the mains and see how well timbre-matched there is. [quote]

Having not heard the Classic 3's yet, I could not offer an opinion on what dipole by someone else might provide a reasonable timbre match, but saying "NOTHING" will be close is pretty naive, IMO. [quote]

I have a tighter definition of "close", I guess.

For John: Even if they had ideally wide dispersion, the 3s won't work since they're too deep (people would be banging their heads) and would be mounted on the walls. The IW4s won't work because of isolation issues. I'm mainly just looking for a manufacturer who has a similar tonal quality to the 3s, ideally in a bipole-tripole-quadpole arrangement for maximum dispersion.

Have you considered maybe building out a bit from the wall for the iW4? Just an idea.

Have you considered maybe building out a bit from the wall for the iW4? Just an idea.

I suppose that's a possibility, however not ideal. I could probably build 5" deep column out of MDF that could eliminate isolation issues. I'd prefer to build the room first, get it finalized, and then start auditioning, however. Adding in-walls to the auditioning list isn't exactly something I want to do, since it requires construction, and possibly deconstruction during the auditioning phase - all after the room construction phase. I'll think about it, though. So you really don't have any good non-monpole suggestions that may sound similar to the 3s?

I suppose that's a possibility, however not ideal. I could probably build 5" deep column out of MDF that could eliminate isolation issues. I'd prefer to build the room first, get it finalized, and then start auditioning, however. Adding in-walls to the auditioning list isn't exactly something I want to do, since it requires construction, and possibly deconstruction during the auditioning phase - all after the room construction phase. I'll think about it, though. So you really don't have any good non-monpole suggestions that may sound similar to the 3s?

Oh, you're building? Well, why not build the box with MDF into the walls, then you can pretty well flush it in. You want to use thicker than one sheet of sheetrock anyway. If you send me an e-mail - john@adnm.com - I'll e-mail you photos of how my brother's room is turning out. Nothing too exotic, but turned out mighty fine for what little we put into it. He has Fours/ThreeC with iW4s. The whole point of 7.1 is to create more focus *and* keep the sound spacious. If you do iW4s, you just put them up a bit higher. But my brother did his at about 3.5' and his room is only 12.5' wide. What is your width/seating arrangement again? Sorry, the thread is advancing faster than I can remember the players!

Asking me what non-monopole speakers I like for matching with Threes/Fours is like asking me which Harley Davidson I would sell my Ducati for :)

When the boundary switch of the M5/M6 is in the 0 position, the speaker has a flat response when it is away from boundaries. When the switch is in the 1 position, the response of the speaker is shelved down 6dB below above 350Hz. This compensates for the fact that when the speaker is placed near a wall, the wall has exactly the opposite effect.

The switch modifies the topology of the woofer crossover section.

All of this, and a lot more, is explained in section 11.3 of the owner's manual below:
http://nhthifi.com/2006/manuals/current/EvolutionUserGuide.pdf
Jack,

Once again, thank you. I downloaded the user manual on the Evolution series last night but I didn't get a chance to read the whole thing. I just got through reading all of section 11. This is a really informative guide that is still easy to understand. The diagrams and graphs really help. Now I also have a much better understanding of why the M5s for L+R Mains need to be vertically oriented as you mentioned in your previous reply. It's also cool how in the horizontal orientation, for a center channel the boundary switch will direct the sound either up or down based on your placement above or below your screen.

Thanks again.

Asking me what non-monopole speakers I like for matching with Threes/Fours is like asking me which Harley Davidson I would sell my Ducati for :)

Nice analogy! The real question is, "Would you trade your Ducati for a new 1098?" :)

Nice analogy! The real question is, "Would you trade your Ducati for a new 1098?" :)

And a testicle ;) Well, actually, not so much. I'm more of a Monster/upright kinda guy, but it sure is sweeeeet. And just when I was finally starting to like the looks of the 999 too!

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

The woofer cones for the M5 and M6 are both a polypropylene sandwich. So is the midrange in the M6. The M5 midrange uses a paper cone. Both speakers use the same tweeter.

Can I assume that they sound similar and the only difference is that the M6 will play louder? Or are they slightly different in the sound they produce?

Oh, you're building? Well, why not build the box with MDF into the walls, then you can pretty well flush it in. You want to use thicker than one sheet of sheetrock anyway. If you send me an e-mail - john@adnm.com - I'll e-mail you photos of how my brother's room is turning out. Nothing too exotic, but turned out mighty fine for what little we put into it. He has Fours/ThreeC with iW4s. The whole point of 7.1 is to create more focus *and* keep the sound spacious. If you do iW4s, you just put them up a bit higher. But my brother did his at about 3.5' and his room is only 12.5' wide. What is your width/seating arrangement again? Sorry, the thread is advancing faster than I can remember the players!

I sent you an email. Should keep things a little cleaner in here since I don't think the following discussion would help anyone else.

Asking me what non-monopole speakers I like for matching with Threes/Fours is like asking me which Harley Davidson I would sell my Ducati for :)

Fair enough. :D

Broodwich,

The boundary switch does not affect which way the M5/M6 directs sounds. I'm not sure where you are getting that from the manual. The boundary switch affects the frequency response of the low end below 500Hz.

The M5/M6 directs the sound at a fixed angle. If your M5/M6 is placed under your TV, you want the M5/M6 orientated to direct the sound upwards. If it is on top of the TV, you want it to direct the sound downwards. This is done by putting the M5/M6 right side up or upside down. Maybe this is what you are thinking of.

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

Bottom line it for us Jack, which do you personally consider to be the better, superior overall speaker, the Three, or the M5/6?

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

I'd put it more than the M5 has better tonality if you're 6-12' away, the M6 does if you're more than 12' away. And/or that the M5 is a bit smoother/warmer while the M6 is a bit more forward and room filling.

Bottom line it for us Jack, which do you personally consider to be the better, superior overall speaker, the Three, or the M5/6?

I'm betting "blood/stone" on that one.

Well I personally like the M5 better than the M6, but it is in a near field listening environment, so, that kind of goes along with what you are saying. They are about maybe 6' away.

Broodwich,

The boundary switch does not affect which way the M5/M6 directs sounds. I'm not sure where you are getting that from the manual. The boundary switch affects the frequency response of the low end below 500Hz.

The M5/M6 directs the sound at a fixed angle. If your M5/M6 is placed under your TV, you want the M5/M6 orientated to direct the sound upwards. If it is on top of the TV, you want it to direct the sound downwards. This is done by putting the M5/M6 right side up or upside down. Maybe this is what you are thinking of.

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

Perhaps I should have said, the boundary switch results in a decrease of energy aimed toward the side walls, thus minimizing early reflections. It that accurate? OH Wait a Minute! :confused:

I'm sorry everyone. Don't listen to me I don't know what I'm talking about. :( I just read the manual again. The boundary switch has noting to do with the energy generated. It merely has to do with the enclosure design and and position of the drivers, specifically the midrange and the tweeter. Positioning the tweeters toward the inside (closest to your TV or screen) results in decreased energy directed toward your side walls. Is that the way it works Jack or am I still confused.

The Boundary switch in position 1 only results in reduced bass output between 80 and 500hz range to compensate for the additional bass build up that will likely occur when placing the M5 inside a bookshelf or entertainment center like mine. Correct Jack?

I'm sorry if I confused anyone.

The boundary switch only lowers the amount of mid/upper bass so it doesn't sound "chesty" near the wall. It has nothing to do with the midrange/treble or the dispersion characteristics.

Bottom line it for us Jack, which do you personally consider to be the better, superior overall speaker, the Three, or the M5/6?



I'm betting "blood/stone" on that one.


Are we could just ask Jack which one does he have in his own Home theater. :cool:
Allen

So unless a speaker is specifically designed to compensate for "thick" mid bass response that occurs when you place the speaker enclosure inside a bookshelf or entertainment center it's not a good choice for use in my situation. That would either mean the manufacturer would either have to design the speaker and it's network to specifically be used inside a cabinet or it would have to feature some type of user selectable switch like the Boundary switch on the NHT Evolutions. Correct?

Correct, though it is my understanding that some designers do not employ a full 6dB of baffle step correction, so it may be possible to find some speakers that are less suseptable to bloated midbass than others. In the EC, I would prefer no baffle step compensation.

In the EC, I would prefer no baffle step compensation.


Why is that?

To avoid a raising bass response. It can be pretty bad especially with male vocals.

I prefer the M5 over the M6.

The M5 and Three are different speakers, designed for different purposes. The M5 plays louder and works better in reflective rooms. The Three has better imaging, and smoother off axis response. Without knowing what the application is, I don't have a preference.

Anytime a loudspeaker is designed, the designer designs it to have a target frequency response with it positioned at some particular place in the room. If this location is far away from boundaries, then when you move that speaker near a wall, it will get very heavy or thick sounding. If that location is very close to boundaries, then the speaker will sound very thin when pulled away from the walls.

For instance the L5 is designed to have flat response when mounted directly against the wall.

An entertainment center really doesn't behave as a complete boundary. How much midbass and low midrange it will add, depends on the exact position of the speaker, shelf locations, etc. The shallower the EC, the closer the speaker is to the wall, which is a boundary. Once an M5/M6 is placed in an EC, you will need to try the boundary switch in both positions to determine which has the best tonality.

I have modified M3.3s and an AC2 at home with SB3s for the rear.

To avoid a raising bass response. It can be pretty bad especially with male vocals.

Without fully understanding what baffle step compensation I was a little baffled (HA!) I just read this simple article (http://www.salksound.com/bsc.html) on baffle step compensation and now I understand your point.

So if your speakers were bi-ampable could you then employ an active crossover between the preamp and the power amp for the woofers in your speaker cabinet and then use that crossover to tune the speaker cabinet? I guess that's what the boundary switch in the M5/M6 is doing now.

I'm sorry, I feel like I'm asking all the stupid questions in the room. There's no such thing as stupid questions right? There's just a bunch of inquisitive idiots.

There's no such thing as stupid questions right?

Well, when the answer to the question doesn't exist or is based on an incorrect premise or fact, *that* is a stupid question :)

What are you trying to say John? :)

- Todd

I have modified M3.3s and an AC2 at home with SB3s for the rear.


That would make sense since the 3.3 is a great speaker and gave NHT a lot of where you are now. I know I wanted a pair of 3.3 but couldn't afford them at the time. So when the 2.9 came out I got a pair.

My NHT path Looks like this.

I got a pair of Superzeros had them about 6 months then I got 3 vs-2 and use the SZ for rears. Then I got a pair of HDP2 and just put the SZ up for a while. Then I add a pair of 2.9 with a vs 2 for center.

Bought a different house and the HDP2 wouldn't work for me.
So I set up 2.9 L/R VS2 for center and vs 2 for rears. Added an AC2 for center and got a pair of 1.5 and the stands for rears. I really liked this system. Then I got 5 M5s for my 5.1 system sold everything but the 2.9's. Didn't have any where to keep my 2.9 so I just put them back as L/R for now with M5 center and rears. Next year I am moving my system up stairs to our bouns room which is 15 x 22. So I was looking at how I am going to set my system up.

So Thanks Again Jack for some great speakers.
Allen

What are you trying to say John? :)

:D

Just kidding! No, really, at one point, I had the perfect definition of a stupid question, but I can't remember it now. Like "Can you move the rover over to where the astronauts landed?" (on Mars). THAT was a stupid question!

I have modified M3.3s and an AC2 at home with SB3s for the rear.

Jack, what amps, AVRs, pre-amps, pre-pros, etc. have you used with them and liked best over the years?

Also, if I may ask, what are the mods on your 3.3s? I'm guessing different crossovers, and maybe even different tweeters?

... sold everything but the 2.9's. Didn't have any where to keep my 2.9 so I just put them back as L/R for now with M5 center and rears. Next year I am moving my system up stairs to our bouns room which is 15 x 22. So I was looking at how I am going to set my system up.

So Thanks Again Jack for some great speakers.
Allen

NEVER get rid of those 2.9s Allen.

You are right about Jack making some great speakers. You simply can't do any better for the $$$ IMO. I think NHT tops even Revel at most price points where they compete. :)

In summary...
It seems like the consensus is that the NHT Evolution M5s would be best for my living room. This is based on the fact that the Evolution series focuses the high and mid frequencies at the listening position both by the cabinet design and by the crossover network with the null between the high and mid frequencies directed at the sidewalls.

And...
The boundary switch will give me control over the mid-bass response by allowing me to shelf the mid-bass frequencies by 6db to compensate for the likely buildup of these frequencies caused by my entertainment center acting as a baffle and reflecting the mid-bass energy back at the listening position.

So...
If I want to go with the NHT product line for my living room three M5s across the front would be the best choice and I can use either two more M5s for the rear surrounds or go with a pair of L5s mounted to the side walls.

Furthermore...
If at some point I want to switch out my subwoofer, I could add the U1 or U2 package which include the A1 amplifier and X1 active crossover.

Did I miss anything? Is this the best NHT configuration for my less than optimum home theater (living room)?

Only that you could *also* get the Controller/Power5 setup and use the Controller for the crossover/EQ. And even get something like a Power2 or another Power5 for handling extra channels or bass ;)

Yep, the Evolution Series as a whole has some very clever custom designing and engineering built in with them to help solve a large variety of problematic room situations. You seem to have just such a situation tailor made for the M5s. :cool:

You will not be disappointed in them. Incredible bang for the buck! ;)

And, as John said, if you eventually get a Controller as a pre-amp/processor, so much the better. IMO, if you own NHT speakers, you simply can not buy a better pre-amp for them, even just for 2 channel, PERIOD! :D

While I haven't heard them together yet, I'll bet the M5/M6 is prolly the best match NHT currently has right now for the Power5/2 as well. I'm sure they go together like peanut butter and jelly. :p

I have already been eyeballing the electronics goodness on the NHT site. :D

...one step at a time, one step at a time... the dog house isn't big enough for all the M5s and my DLP rear projector. I suppose I could build a bigger dog house. :rolleyes:

NEVER get rid of those 2.9s Allen.




Mark my plan is to put them on a small tube amp in my office area of the house one day. So Yes I do plan on keeping them.
Allen

PS MArk why don't you tell all that you have owned or still own. I think you have owned 80% of what NHT has made.

I hear you Allen. The way I look at it, for no more than you could get for selling them used, tell me what you could buy for the same $$$ new or used that would sound better to replace them? You can't. :p

The 2.9s would be killer if you bi-amped them with say an X2/A1 (or NAD C272) for the subs, and a sweet little tubed integrated for the top end. I tried a Jolida hybrid integrated (tube pre-amp section with an SS power amp section for the best of both worlds, at least in theory anyway) on the top of the 3.3s with dual SA-3 sub amps on the subs, one for each speaker, and it sounded great! :)

Back in like '96 or '97, the 3.3s were my dream speakers, but I couldn't swing them at the time, so I went for some Boston Acoustics sealed acoustic suspension towers that actually weren't half bad at all. :cool:

For the prices you can now pick up 3.3s, 2.9s, and VT-3s for used, they are an absolute steal. :D

As for me, I have 3.3s, 2.9s, VT-3s (that I got new in box about a year ago straight from Jack himself, I think they were like the last pair they had of NOS), T5s, T6s, Threes, XD, VT-1.4s, SB3s, ST4s. And that's not even counting centers, surrounds, and subs like M5, M6, L5, AC2, VRC, VRS, U2, U1, etc. ;)

Like I said, for no more than I could get for them selling them used, just can't bear to part with them. :o

Hey Everyone,

I just stopped by a local dealer today and took a listen to the Classic Four and was quite impressed. I have been looking for an upgrade on my Paradigm Studio 60 v.2 for some time and I think this could be it.

From what I could see on that Stereopile review, it seems to like a bit of power in the lower mids. Might be why some reviewers thought it might be a little thin in the midrange. Anyway, I am planning to hook it up to a Pass Labs X250/X2.5 combo. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or experience with that setup.

Shouldn't be any problem for that amp. The Fours aren't heavy in the lower midrange and sound better sorted and balanced. Mid bass is perhaps a bit heavy, bit it's about an octave lower compared to the Three.

While I'm not familiar with that combo, Pass Labs reputation precedes them.

Look at his part work for Adcom, Nakamichi, Parasound, etc.

You are correct in that NHT speakers in general are traditionally inefficient in their sensitivity ratings, and a stout power amp is needed for them to show what they can do. IOWs, most of the lower tier Japanese AVRs are not really the best match for them.

The Fours especially when driven large or full range do need some muscle behind them, but they do indeed deliver the goods.

Look at his part work for Adcom, Nakamichi, Parasound, etc.

Parasound was John Curl, unless something has changed! Adcom/Nak, yes.

I knew Curl was with Parasound, but I thought Pass was too at one point? :confused:

Regardless, I'm sure the Pass Labs gear is nice. :)

Anyone but Bob Carver, right John? :p ;)

Nelson Pass had done some work for Adcom (GFP-750) and Threshold as well.

I had read the review in HometheaterandSound.com for the Classic system. What I did notice was the amp used was Anthem's MCA50, which is certainly no slouch, but is known to be a bit cool compared to the Pass.

Something I have noticed over time is synergy. Mix a match poorly and and the results can be less then stellar. I am really hoping that if I pair these two together, it would provide an extremely fine pair.

It is why I am asking as I think I might pull this trigger by noon tomorrow. Overall, I am pretty sure I won't be disappointed considering the cost. Hell, I have heard a pair of $5,500 dollar speakers that had been effectively sterile and lifeless in comparison.

[QUOTE=mmeysarosh]I had read the review in HometheaterandSound.com for the Classic system. What I did notice was the amp used was Anthem's MCA50, which is certainly no slouch, but is known to be a bit cool

Lets not pick on this amp, as this is the one I am running.

I am really on the fence about the Classic 4, as for the money they can't be touched, but I heard some Sonus Foba, and am in love, but do I really want to spend 10K.

Michael

All of this, and a lot more, is explained in section 11.3 of the owner's manual below:
http://nhthifi.com/2006/manuals/current/EvolutionUserGuide.pdf

Hi Jack,

I am in the process of buying the M6 speakers for my LCR speakers, so I thought I'd check out the manual. I noticed in the manual that it shows the center set on top of the TV with the tweeter on the bottom and the midrange on the top. Is this the preferred recommendation from NHT with the center significantly higher than the mains and the LP? I will have a similar setup where all three M6's will be in a AV cabinet and the center is about 14" higher than the top of the L and R speakers and about 24" above the tweeter/mid of the L/R M6's as a result of them being placed in the Horizontal orientation. With the normal listening position at about 36" from the floor (10 ft. away) and the center about 6 ft. from the ground on top of the TV, I will also be angling the center down slightly.
I found a review (2003 review on Ultimate AV by Thomas J. Norton) where they took measurements of the M6 and noted that if it's placed on top of a TV that it may be best to turn the center upside down: "This suggests that mounting the speaker with the tweeter at the bottom might be beneficial if you place it atop a tall rear-projection TV".

With all this in mind it would suggest that maybe mounting the center with the tweeter on the bottom might be best in my case. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
MF

In section 3.0 The manual states...

When Evolution monitors are placed horizontally in a cabinet, the tweeter orientation (top or bottom) depends on the placement height. If the monitor is placed above the listener’s ear, the tweeter should be below the midrange driver as shown in the photo. If the monitor is placed below the listener’s ear, the tweeter should be above the midrange driver.
The picture in the manual shows, the tweeter on the bottom when it's placed above the TV, the text from the manual suggests this is the way you should do it and the review you read suggests this is the best way. What's your question MF? :confused:

[QUOTE=mmeysarosh]I had read the review in HometheaterandSound.com for the Classic system. What I did notice was the amp used was Anthem's MCA50, which is certainly no slouch, but is known to be a bit cool

Lets not pick on this amp, as this is the one I am running.

I am really on the fence about the Classic 4, as for the money they can't be touched, but I heard some Sonus Foba, and am in love, but do I really want to spend 10K.

Michael

Certainly not picking on it at all. I think comparing it to an amp that costs significantly more and naming it as competitive is a complement. While there is certainly a difference, and that difference will be different for each person, it is by no means that great.

BTW, which of the Sonus Faber speakers did you hear. I demoed the Domus Grand Piano a while back. Is it the same?

It's real simple, if your M5/6 is on top of the TV, tweeter goes down. If it's below the TV (as my M5 is), tweeter goes up. Height has nothing to do with it, although you can use the enclosed "bar stand" to tilt it down some if you wish.

The tweeter on my M5 is only about 18" off the floor, but it actually gets reinforcement support from the floor, and sounds great. It certainly doesn't sound like it's too low. If you really think about it, most characters mouths are closer to the bottom of the screen than the top anyway for dialogue.

Also, set boundary switch to 1.

What's your question MF? :confused:
You obviously answered it. I did not actually read that page. :o
It's just the first I have heard if this type of recommendation. I have owned a few 3-way centers too, and NHT is the first I have heard of that actually makes this recommendation. And then the reviewer just says that it "might be beneficial". I just wanted to here it directly from the engineer himself at NHT, with maybe some type of explaination in laymans terms that hopefully I can understand as to why this is recommended.

Thanks,
MF

It's real simple, if your M5/6 is on top of the TV, tweeter goes down. If it's below the TV (as my M5 is), tweeter goes up. Height has nothing to do with it, although you can use the enclosed "bar stand" to tilt it down some if you wish.

The tweeter on my M5 is only about 18" off the floor, but it actually gets reinforcement support from the floor, and sounds great. It certainly doesn't sound like it's too low. If you really think about it, most characters mouths are closer to the bottom of the screen than the top anyway for dialogue.

Also, set boundary switch to 1.
But aren't most of the "dialogue" frequencies coming from the midrange?

But isn't most of the "dialouge" frequencies coming from the midrange?

I was talking about the physical location of the entire speaker itself.

I'm still not getting why it's best to have the tweeter in the "down' position when it's placed on top of the TV. How is it beneficial with regards to dialogue being closer to the TV screen, if most of the dialogue freq. are coming from the midrange driver?

Thanks and sorry for the ignorance. :o

I'm still not getting why it's best to have the tweeter in the "down' position when it's placed on top of the TV. How is it beneficail with regards to dialogue being closer to the TV screen, if most of the dialogue freq. are coming from the midrange driver?

Thanks and sorry for the ignorance. :o

Actually dialogue has nothing to do with it. That was just me commenting on how most characters mouths were closer to the bottom of the screen anyway than the top most of the time as a big reason (among others) why I think it's better to have the speaker itself below the TV screen than on top of it..

Just to clarify, this is of course, about when the M5/6 is used as a center speaker above or below a TV only, not if the M5/6 is being used horizontally as a main or surround.

I'll stop now before I continue to cause more confusion than not. :p

Mark, I understand that it is better to have the center closer to the "mouths" on the screen, thus having placed under the TV is a good idea, but any idea why it is recommended to flip the M6 center upside down if it's placed on top of the TV with the tweeter on the bottom? I really have no option to place mine under the TV, that's why I am asking the question about the tweeter orientation when it's placed on top of the TV.

MF,

See section 11.2 in the Evolution manual for the explanation. The correct tweeter location relative to the TV has to do with where the listener is located relative to the speaker.

If the speaker is on top of the TV, the listener will probably be located below the speaker. This puts the speakers main radiation axis (curves A and B) aimed at the listener.

If the speaker is below the TV, the listener will probably be located above the speaker. This also puts the speakers main radiation axis (curves A and B) aimed at the listener.

Mark doesn't have this quite correct.

If you had a TV in which the bottom was 5' off of the ground, you would want to put the tweeter AWAY from the TV. This would aim the sound downwards at the listener.

In practice you never have a TV that has its bottom 5' off the ground, so we just say to keep the tweeter against the TV in all cases. This rule almost always works.

Mark,

Here is what's different in my M3.3s.

1) Used an X2 to biamp the speaker. Had to modify the EQ sections in the X2 to get the response I wanted to make the speaker flat down to 20-25Hz.

2) I removed the passive subwoofer LP crossover completely.

3) I removed the 6.5" HP crossover completely. This consists of one series cap and one parallel inductor.

4) Reduced the volume of the 6.5" chamber by about 65%. I glued large blocks of wood in there. This raises the resonant frequency by a bunch. Along with the crossover mods and the active crossover It allows the 6.5" and the subwoofer to integrate much better. This solves my single biggest gripe with the M3.3, that it almost never has enough 80-150-Hz output. All of these mods need to be done at the same time to work. It will give the M3.3 most of the warmth and slam that a T6 system has.

[QUOTE=AnthemAVM]

Certainly not picking on it at all. I think comparing it to an amp that costs significantly more and naming it as competitive is a complement. While there is certainly a difference, and that difference will be different for each person, it is by no means that great.

BTW, which of the Sonus Faber speakers did you hear. I demoed the Domus Grand Piano a while back. Is it the same?

Just kidding about picking on the amp, there is an amp for everyone.

Yes it was the Grand Piano, very nice, but is it worth the extra over the Classic 4, not sure?

This puts the speakers main radiation axis (curves A and B) aimed at the listener.

There's the answer we all missed MF. :o

[QUOTE=mmeysarosh]

Just kidding about picking on the amp, there is an amp for everyone.

Yes it was the Grand Piano, very nice, but is it worth the extra over the Classic 4, not sure?

I must agree that the price difference is quite high. Comparatively, the Grand Piano Domus would cost more then four times more. The law of diminishing returns are certainly in effect.

MF,

See section 11.2 in the Evolution manual for the explanation. The correct tweeter location relative to the TV has to do with where the listener is located relative to the speaker.

If the speaker is on top of the TV, the listener will probably be located below the speaker. This puts the speakers main radiation axis (curves A and B) aimed at the listener.

Thanks Jack! That makes sense. Sorry I missed that part in the manual.

Mark,

Here is what's different in my M3.3s.

1) Used an X2 to biamp the speaker. Had to modify the EQ sections in the X2 to get the response I wanted to make the speaker flat down to 20-25Hz.

2) I removed the passive subwoofer LP crossover completely.

3) I removed the 6.5" HP crossover completely. This consists of one series cap and one parallel inductor.

4) Reduced the volume of the 6.5" chamber by about 65%. I glued large blocks of wood in there. This raises the resonant frequency by a bunch. Along with the crossover mods and the active crossover It allows the 6.5" and the subwoofer to integrate much better. This solves my single biggest gripe with the M3.3, that it almost never has enough 80-150-Hz output. All of these mods need to be done at the same time to work. It will give the M3.3 most of the warmth and slam that a T6 system has.

Thanks Jack. If I may ask, what electronics; amps, receivers, pre-amps, integrateds, etc. have you used and liked best with hem over the years?

I'm guessing an A1 or even two of them are on the 3.3's subs right now at the moment?

And finally, will you be getting a Controller/Power5 if you haven't already? :)

I just did it! I pulled the trigger on a new pair of Classic Four towers. I will be comparing them to my Paradigm Studio 60 v.2 as my current reference.

I wanted to ask two questions;

1) About how long will it take for the speaker to break in?

2) What size spades do the binding posts accept.

Congrats!

I'm sure you won't regret it. :D

As long as the speaker drivers are at room temperature, there will be no change in performance during "break in", except your brain will be acclimating itself to the speakers.

The major diameter of the binding posts are 7.8mm (0.307"). The through hole for the wire is 5mm (0.197").

I just did it! I pulled the trigger on a new pair of Classic Four towers. I will be comparing them to my Paradigm Studio 60 v.2 as my current reference.



Sweet, be sure to come back and brag, err, share your thoughts.

Hi All... new to the forum but actually a NHT owner / user for several years now.

I'm looking for some advice along a couple of dimensions. I just purchased Classic 4s (still in box) and am wondering if anyone has any opinions or advice on a) placement from the wall (my room is 13' x 22', they will be placed with their backs to the 13' wall radiated outward towards the 22') both back and sides, and b) woofers pointing in or out, and c) my other kit for 7.1 listening is SB3s (sides), a SuperCenter, and SuperOnes (rear) and will they be WAY off tonally and should I therefore upgrade? And to what? The rears are only 32" apart unfortunately due to a window at that side of the room.
My other kit is a Denon 3805 with a NAD C272 driving the front (Classic 4s) and I have a NHT SA-2 amp driving a custom downward firing sub built with a 10" NHT driver. Any help or opinion on any of the above 3 items will be appreciated & taken seriously. Thanks!

As long as the speaker drivers are at room temperature, there will be no change in performance during "break in", except your brain will be acclimating itself to the speakers.

Nice to hear that is the official party line.

Mark,

There are Four A1s driving the M3.3s.

Currently I have a Parasound AVC-2500 for a preamp/processor.

Since I do audio at work all day, I don't do it at home. My A/V system is very stable. I only really change things when something breaks or work reposses it.

Mark,

There are Four A1s driving the M3.3s.

Currently I have a Parasound AVC-2500 for a preamp/processor.

Since I do audio at work all day, I don't do it at home. My A/V system is very stable. I only really change things when something breaks or work reposses it.




I can understand this. I was working on a special project at work building some real time trending screens for trouble shooting. I would spend 8 to 12 hours a day at my computer working on this. This went on for about 3 months. It got so bad I just about unplugged my computer at home. :eek:

But I think the question Mark was asking and I would love to know myself (correct me if I am wrong Mark) What was the best combination that made any pair of 3.3 sing so good that you picked your head up looked over at them and smiled and said to yourself "Now that is what I am talking about".
Allen

Hi All... new to the forum but actually a NHT owner / user for several years now.

I'm looking for some advice along a couple of dimensions. I just purchased Classic 4s (still in box) and am wondering if anyone has any opinions or advice on a) placement from the wall (my room is 13' x 22', they will be placed with their backs to the 13' wall radiated outward towards the 22') both back and sides, and b) woofers pointing in or out, and c) my other kit for 7.1 listening is SB3s (sides), a SuperCenter, and SuperOnes (rear) and will they be WAY off tonally and should I therefore upgrade? And to what? The rears are only 32" apart unfortunately due to a window at that side of the room.
My other kit is a Denon 3805 with a NAD C272 driving the front (Classic 4s) and I have a NHT SA-2 amp driving a custom downward firing sub built with a 10" NHT driver. Any help or opinion on any of the above 3 items will be appreciated & taken seriously. Thanks!

Hi, and welcome to the board.

As for placement, point the woofers in the direction with the most open space for them to start with, but by all means try it both ways and see which YOU like best.

The first upgrade I would recommend would definitely be to get a Classic 3C center speaker to match your Fours across the front stage. The surrounds, while great if they do, are far less critical for matching IMO

Then maybe later on you could switch your surrounds to Threes, or even the matching in-walls.

Set your Fours to large, or full range. Your NAD C272 will be strong enough for them. A great amp for the $$$.

As for your sub, well, the subs in the Fours are plenty, but maybe you could use it for some LFE reinforcement for the back of the room.

And finally, maybe eventually replace the 3805 with a Controller/Power5 combo, and use the NAD C272 for your rear surrounds.

Then to go really go all out, maybe get a different sub as another option. :eek:

I'll stop there since I've already spent a lot of your money. :p

Mark,

There are Four A1s driving the M3.3s.

Currently I have a Parasound AVC-2500 for a preamp/processor.

Since I do audio at work all day, I don't do it at home. My A/V system is very stable. I only really change things when something breaks or work reposses it.

Thanks again Jack.

But I think the question Mark was asking and I would love to know myself (correct me if I am wrong Mark) What was the best combination that made any pair of 3.3 sing so good that you picked your head up looked over at them and smiled and said to yourself "Now that is what I am talking about".
Allen

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it Allen. I was just curious.

I think you'll like the 2.9s with a tube amp when you get it.

Some of the best sound I ever heard from my 3.3s/2.9s was with this Jolida hybrid integrated (along with it's matching tube CD player):

http://www.jolida.com/catalogue/models/jd1501rc.shtml

driving the top end with some old NHT bass amps SA-3, powering the subs.

Jolida needs to update their website, cause that model now has pre-outs, so you could use an X2/A1 combo with it now, which is, IMO, better than the old SA2/3 amps.

Hi,
How would the classic 4's and classic 3C center match up with the older VS-2 model if the VS-2s were used as side and rear surrounds? I know additional classic 3's would the the best match, but i'm thinking of upgrading from VT-2 fronts and VS-2 center and would like to keep the side and rear VS-2s for now if they are at least a reasonable tonal and voicing match. Also how significant of an upgrade would it be going from the VT-2s to the Classic 4?
Thanks for any input.
Joe H

I have 3 Threes across the front and Mission 77ds bipole surrounds and it works great for movies and effects. I will be upgrading with either Fours, IW4s, or Threes, once I figure out my room for multichannel music.

I am sure you'll be fine for movies and DPL IIx.

Hi,
How would the classic 4's and classic 3C center match up with the older VS-2 model if the VS-2s were used as side and rear surrounds? I know additional classic 3's would the the best match, but i'm thinking of upgrading from VT-2 fronts and VS-2 center and would like to keep the side and rear VS-2s for now if they are at least a reasonable tonal and voicing match. Also how significant of an upgrade would it be going from the VT-2s to the Classic 4?
Thanks for any input.
Joe H

Joe,

I just sold my VT-2, which I owned for 10 years. I heard the Classic 4, and wondered why I lived with my VT-2 for so long. The sound stage on the Classic 4 is huge, and for the money can't be touched. So I would call it a huge upgrade.

Michael

Joe,

I just sold my VT-2, which I owned for 10 years. I heard the Classic 4, and wondered why I lived with my VT-2 for so long. The sound stage on the Classic 4 is huge, and for the money can't be touched. So I would call it a huge upgrade.

Michael

Looks like we are in for a very merry holiday. I am receiving my Classic Four on Sunday. So I guess that means we both can share our....thoughts soon :).

Congrats to all the new Four owners. :D

Hi,
How would the classic 4's and classic 3C center match up with the older VS-2 model if the VS-2s were used as side and rear surrounds? I know additional classic 3's would the the best match, but i'm thinking of upgrading from VT-2 fronts and VS-2 center and would like to keep the side and rear VS-2s for now if they are at least a reasonable tonal and voicing match. Also how significant of an upgrade would it be going from the VT-2s to the Classic 4?
Thanks for any input.
Joe H

Pretty significant. Earlier on in this thread, I asked John to compare the Four, T5, VT-2.4 (a direct successor to the VT-2), and 2.9s. Here was his response:

In FR accuracy/integration it goes T5, 2.9, Four, VT-2.4
In treble and midrange resolution, it goes Four, T5, VT-2.4, 2.9
In bass quality, it goes T5, 2.9, Four, VT-2.4
In bass output/dynamics, it goes T5, Four, VT-2.4, 2.9
In soundstage, it goes Four, T5, VT-2.4, 2.9
In imaging precision, it goes Four, 2.9, T5, VT-2.4
In sweetspot, it goes T5, Four, 2.9, VT-2.4

The Four *could* beat out the T5, IMO, in virtually every way, but there's no denying the T5's bass quality. It's awesome by any standard. Now, put a set of Threes with an Evolution sub, and I think it wins or ties pretty much every contest, no problem.

I see the Four as being a fantastic all around performer. It's only liability, I think, is that the bass isn't as precise as the T5/T6. But that puts it pretty well on par with most every other tower speaker under $10K. I can't think of a tower speaker off hand under $10K that has the bass quality and depth of the 3.3, VT-3, T5, T6 models, though I'm sure there might be a couple. But if you transplant the dual 10" woofers from the Xd system into a "Five", you've got a deadly speaker, not just a "giant matcher", but a real giant killer with embarrassingly awesome bass and dynamic range. That would be the real deal. That being said, nitpicking the bass on the Fours is kind of like complaining that the VW R32 only has a 250HP engine and so it can't quite match a Viper in drag race. The Four's main "weakness" is equal or superior to all its similarly priced competition.


Based on a rating system of finished ranking in each category assigned a point system as follows:
1 = 4 points,
2 = 3,
3 = 2, and
4 = 1, the final tally was as follows:

T5 = 24 points,
Four = 22,
2.9 = 14, and
VT-2.4 = 10 points.

The T5 barely nicked the Four using this criteria based mostly on better sub performance, which would be nullified by using Evo subs with the Classics. :cool:

Thanks for the replies, particularly on the question of the upgrade from VT2s to classic 4s.

Could anyone expand on how reasonable a match the VS2's would be as side and rear surrounds to classic 4's as fronts (with a classic 3 center)? Would the VS2s be a terrible mismatch or would the voicing and timbre be close enough that it wouldnt be a disaster?

Thanks in advance as always.

Joe H
'

Thanks for the replies, particularly on the question of the upgrade from VT2s to classic 4s.

Could anyone expand on how reasonable a match the VS2's would be as side and rear surrounds to classic 4's as fronts (with a classic 3 center)? Would the VS2s be a terrible mismatch or would the voicing and timbre be close enough that it wouldnt be a disaster?

Thanks in advance as always.

Joe H
'

Would the person that you are buying the Classic 4 from allow you to bring in the VS2 and try them out?

All this talk of the Fours makes me want to pull the trigger, but I'm wondering if my Anthem PVA-7 is up to the task. 100w x 7, all driven or 125w x 2, stereo.

Regarding the timbre matching of front to rear, I have Classic Threes + 3C in front and SB2s in the rear and transitions are almost seamless, at least better than when the SB2s were in the front and SuperZeroes in rear. I noticed that placement has a pretty big effect on how they sound too.

No problem. 100W of real power is plenty. Generally speaking, with this kind of power, if the sound is strained, it's the speaker that is straining.

Hey John, judging by all the recent apparent sales of Fours and M5s here lately, maybe Schadenfreude had it right after all. ;) :D

Quote:
The new ads?!? Heck, show me ANY effectual NHT ad and I'll *give* you the speakers!!!!!



OK!!!!! ....YOUR THREAD, THIS ONE ... if you don't send me the classic threes now you are insincere.


Quote:
NHT, god love'em are absolutely *clueless* when it comes to marketing or advertising. I've written about a dozen ads for them and they refuse to use any of the ideas.


I thought this thread was the longest running ad of theirs, AND THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN MOST OF IT......

Oh, GOD....sorry, but considering the thread here and the two (excuse me, maybe ONE) of you, and the E-marketing ....

We now return you to your regularly scheduled commercial.....

Will the Classic 4 play as loud as the Vt2 did?

I don't know about the VT2, maybe John or Jack could help you there, but the T5/M5 will play louder than the Four/Three FWIW.

Per John's earlier statement and assuming the speaker is balanced at all output levels:
In bass output/dynamics, it goes T5, Four, VT-2.4, 2.9
I would assume the Fours would hold their own.

Hey John, judging by all the recent apparent sales of Fours and M5s here lately, maybe Schadenfreude had it right after all. ;) :D

Well, I know NHT isn't for everyone, but I do think that anyone who buys any speaker without listening to an NHT first is really potentially hurting themselves. Of all the stuff I've sold (about 20 different brands) and traded in (lost count years ago), it's overall the most competitive line I've ever come across.

You know, the unfortunate thing is that the poor little Absolute Zero gets almost no press. Cool little speaker.

My original Zeros are still in use today. They are great little speakers.

I remember going home to my modded SuperZeros and modded passive SW1 subwoofer (acoustic suspension) set up on stands with my 20W NAD amp and CD player and just getting blown away every damn time I sat down to listen. I still miss that and don't quite have that experience right now because the imaging/soundstaging was otherworldly. No matter what high-end speaker I listened to that day, I could go home and get blown away by my little system.

Man what a great thread! I have had both sets of 2.9's and VT-2's and I had to sell them off a few years back and now I am looking to try out some of the new one's like the classic fours. My system consisted of a ROTEL 200w Amp and matching Pre-amp and I am here to tell you that the VT-2's could handle all I threw at them, and trust me when I say I like it Loud! The 2.9's definately liked the lower listening levels, especially from a set of custom Heathkit W5-M monoblocks! My only concern is how will the new speakers compare to the old and now that Ken is not part of the big picture what will happen to NHT? Well, I know NHT isn't for everyone, but I do think that anyone who buys any speaker without listening to an NHT first is really potentially hurting themselves. Of all the stuff I've sold (about 20 different brands) and traded in (lost count years ago), it's overall the most competitive line I've ever come across. I must agree, I too thought I had my heart set on a different set of speakers and the sales guy mentioned that I take a listen to a set of NHT's. It was love from there on! What most people dont realise about NHT's is no matter how loud you play them, from low easy listening or blowing the windows out they never complain and the detail, imaging, everything sounds beautiful! Maybe Santa will bring me a new set of Four's! The only thing is I hope they can handle what I put my VT's through! Cheers

I remember going home to my modded SuperZeros and modded passive SW1 subwoofer (acoustic suspension) set up on stands with my 20W NAD amp and CD player and just getting blown away every damn time I sat down to listen. I still miss that and don't quite have that experience right now because the imaging/soundstaging was otherworldly. No matter what high-end speaker I listened to that day, I could go home and get blown away by my little system.

Was that the NAD 20 series John? Back in the early 90s, I had a NAD 2 channel stereo receiver, CD player and cassette deck. I can't remember the model #s, but they all ended in 20. They all retailed for around $300 each back then, not too far off from what their modern day equivalents like the C320 and C521 BEEs do today.

My speakers at the time were some little Boston bookshelves, A40 I think it was? Or something like that. Anyways, they were sealed at least. :p

I had no sub then though. :( :o :mad:

... and trust me when I say I like it Loud!

You know, you might would like the T5, or a M5/U2 (or U1) combination better than the Four in that case, and either way, you'd have better bass, not to mention the amp power for it.

Just food for thought.

Man what a great thread! I have had both sets of 2.9's and VT-2's and I had to sell them off a few years back and now I am looking to try out some of the new one's like the classic fours. My system consisted of a ROTEL 200w Amp and matching Pre-amp and I am here to tell you that the VT-2's could handle all I threw at them, and trust me when I say I like it Loud! The 2.9's definately liked the lower listening levels, especially from a set of custom Heathkit W5-M monoblocks! My only concern is how will the new speakers compare to the old and now that Ken is not part of the big picture what will happen to NHT? I must agree, I too thought I had my heart set on a different set of speakers and the sales guy mentioned that I take a listen to a set of NHT's. It was love from there on! What most people dont realise about NHT's is no matter how loud you play them, from low easy listening or blowing the windows out they never complain and the detail, imaging, everything sounds beautiful! Maybe Santa will bring me a new set of Four's! The only thing is I hope they can handle what I put my VT's through! Cheers

Too Fast you sound just like me. Sold the Vt2 to someone that is in love with them, wasn't going to go back with NHT, but then the Classic 4 were played for me. I am in Love, but not sure they will play as loud like the VT-2.
HOw about that sound stage on the Classic 4, much better that the Vt-2

My only concern is how will the new speakers compare to the old and now that Ken is not part of the big picture what will happen to NHT?

Actually, in some ways, it was good that Ken got out and let Bill and now Jack take over. Ken had the greatest idea in the modern world for a speaker company BUT he his main limitation was that he didn't like to spend money on crossover parts or drivers. He thought good speaker design was all about great cabinets and integration. And that *is* probably most of it. But Bill and Jack were willing to up the caliber of the drivers and crossovers and brought added refinements and qualities to the NHT "experiment" that allowed the speakers to not only keep up with the times, but actually increase in quality at a much higher rate than most other companies. The newer NHTs are more refined, more resolving and have a much bigger soundstage than Ken's designs, while remaining true to the core foundation of NHT (except for those big holes on some of the towers/subs!!!)

Was that the NAD 20 series John? Back in the early 90s, I had a NAD 2 channel stereo receiver, CD player and cassette deck. I can't remember the model #s, but they all ended in 20. They all retailed for around $300 each back then, not too far off from what their modern day equivalents like the C320 and C521 BEEs do today.

It was the 310 and 510 as I recall.

My speakers at the time were some little Boston bookshelves, A40 I think it was? Or something like that. Anyways, they were sealed at least. :p

I started off with Boston A60s :p I've never owned a ported speaker, I do believe. A60s, SuperZeros, 1.5s, 2.9s, T5s, L5s..........

Actually, in some ways, it was good that Ken got out and let Bill and now Jack take over. Ken had the greatest idea in the modern world for a speaker company BUT he his main limitation was that he didn't like to spend money on crossover parts or drivers. He thought good speaker design was all about great cabinets and integration. And that *is* probably most of it. But Bill and Jack were willing to up the caliber of the drivers and crossovers and brought added refinements and qualities to the NHT "experiment" that allowed the speakers to not only keep up with the times, but actually increase in quality at a much higher rate than most other companies. The newer NHTs are more refined, more resolving and have a much bigger soundstage than Ken's designs, while remaining true to the core foundation of NHT (except for those big holes on some of the towers/subs!!!)

A direct A/B comparison between a set of T5s and 2.9s (or even 3.3s for that matter) will very clearly demonstrate exactly that.

I started off with Boston A60s :p

Small world sometimes, isn't it?

I still have a pair of A60s in use somewhere and an about to set up a 20+ yrear old NAD 7220 receiver to drive a pair of speakers (sadly not NHT) for computer use.

FWIW, The Perfect Vision just named Classic the >$2000 HT speaker system of the year.

Interesting. What was the system; Fours, Threes, and Three C?

I believe so.

Well it has got to be good news for NHT and their dealers.

Congrats to Jack and his his crew.

I still have a pair of A60s in use somewhere and an about to set up a 20+ yrear old NAD 7220 receiver to drive a pair of speakers (sadly not NHT) for computer use.

Yeah! That's it! The 7220 is what I had (I think).

Looks like quite a few current NHT users started off on sealed BA's.