New NHT Classic line to replace Super Audio - Page 19

I was told today that the 3Cs are in the US at customs, but haven't arrived yet at NHT yet. Of course, that was Mary and it isn't her primary concern, so she asked me to call back in the morning to talk to the one of the sales guys who could be more specific.

Yeah, sorry guys, it's a minor hack, but a major pain in the butt. I've more or less isolated the issues and am still trying to figure out how eliminate them. I was able to hide the problem from users, but it seems adept at preserving itself from elimination thus far.

Just wanted to note that I've decided to go with Evolution series speakers rather than Classics for our upcoming HT. I needed to make some decisions before construction started and didn't feel comfortable going with the new speakers without hearing and seeing them first. That, and there is already so much that supports the choice of the Evolutions. I also have to wonder how much business NHT is losing by their ambiguous communication regarding release of the new line.

Thanks for the input of those on this forum. BTW, while John's love for NHT does seem to verge on head-over-heels blindness (and we all know how dangerous that can be) I want to say that he was reluctant to sell to me over the phone given the availability of a local dealer. His comments (taken in context, and put in the perspective of other more objective opinions) were certainly helpful for me. I will be purchasing from a showroom dealer rather than over the internet.

Good luck for those of you anticipating the purchase and/or arrival of the new speakers--I'll read this thread to hear what you think of these speakers.

KK

Hmmmm, I don't know about that. Ask NHT how much I love them and you'll get a different answer! I give them a lot of hell and make sure they keep on the straight and narrow (or make them miserable when they don't). I am very seriously pressing the point that they need to have stuff *in production* before announcing it and that they are not filling all the critical holes in their line. I complain that Evo isn't very attractive (which is the main reason they're going to kill off the tower versions). I complain that there is no "ZeroC" or a real "TwoC" (that actually matches). I complain that the subs should all be dual woofer/acoustic suspension by now. I complain that their internet presence is poor, that they need to keep striving for better customer service and communication with dealers and endusers and a BUNCH of other things, trust me. It's not love, it's more like a dysfunctional relationship based on great sex, you know, when you're just screaming at her one minute, then rip her clothes off. It ain't love, but it beats boring. I've never seen any other company take such a consistently no-compromise approach to affordable speakers before. The Three is so badass, it just makes me shiver to think about it. I will admit it gets a little co-dependent sometimes though.

Did they ship yet?

Not yet. I just got a message back from Jeff at NHT and they're expecting the container of 3Cs (black) to arrive late today, early tomorrow. They're here in the US, just not quite *there* yet. Threes should just be a day or two behind. Port security throws a whole new wrench into the works.

What makes a speaker attractive is such a subjective thing, and is so specific to an individuals personal taste and the decor one intends to place them in, that manufacturers are forced to take calculated risks with any approach they take. Go conservative and you may very well capture those buyers looking for neutral looking speakers; while alienating those wanting something more compelling in their livingroom. Go daring and you may turn off as many as you turn on. Tough choices to make, considering the size of investment required. Some manufactures try to be all things to everyone, but that rarely ever works out well. Consider also, you now have the HT revolution with its need for adding eight boxes to the equation, and you quickly see how improbable the task of pleasing everyone really is.

As to the Evo not being attractive; I would beg to differ. Although I do agree that the tower version of the M5/M6 is an awkward, cobbled together looking sort of tower sytem at best, as its painfull looks are really a function of trying to blend those clunky looking bass modules with the more elegantly proportioned monitors placed on top of them. While I realize plain and clean looking equates to boring for some, I personally do find the more neutral grey painted finish on the Evos a refreshing change from the sea of either wood or all black offerings. The style is more contemporary than many would prefer, but I'll bet some do like the fact that the Evos have a finish that doesn't require them to try and either match or contrast contrast with all the other various woods in their house (i.e. furniture, floors, kitchen cabinets, etc.), as it can be an agonizing process to undertake for many of us.

Interestingly enough, I just received a mailer from Audio Advisor that featured the new NHT Classic speakers. The flyer showed a living room with a pair of Classic Four towers, ThreeC center channel speaker and Twelve (or Ten?) subwoofer; all shown in the new glossier piano black finish. When you see the Classics in something other than a isolated shot on a white background (like NHT's web site) and in a less high style home, they just look out of place to my eye. Coincidentally, they had it shown with a Pioneer plasma with its glossy black frame; which reminds me of one of the down sides to placing glossy black things near flickering bright light sources: all those damned distracting reflections! Of course, what most people that have never owned something this shiny and black never think about until after the fact [those who have had black cars will nod in agreement here], is that every spec of dust that lands on it becomes instantly visible!

Personally John, I think you should be bitchin' to NHT about how gawdawfull those Xdes look in the red and cream paint, or even the baby poop "special dark" finish. I had to chuckle that one guy is putting up his unplayed Xd system on audiogon, simply because he got the wifey veto after pulling just one speaker out of the box. I'll bet the Xdes would look far better in the finish they use for the Pro Audio line. The Classic black finish on the Xdes would likely be preferred to the current two-toned paint schemes; but I do understand NHT's need to somehow distinguish them from the Classic line; however, (IMO) they seriously missed on this particular styling effort. The XdA amplifier really missed the styling mark as well, IMHO. NHT especially needs to work on the style for all their new elctronic products. The new Controller and Power 5 electronics are prime examples of this, but the Controller's unique feature set may get some to look past its undistinguished face, as it can always be hidden out of sight.

John...have you heard the Three?

Have you seen the Xd in person? Looks much better than in pictures, at least the standard color does. I'd imagine the special dark looks better in person as well.

That's an interesting observation.

When I bought my AZ's to replace my SB3's in my 2CH rig, I was thinking that I would just have to live with their styling, which did not immediately grab me.

After a few months though, the SB3's just look like plain black boxes, while the AZ's have really grown on me. I am now to the point that I think they look cool (form following function, perhaps?).

I read a quote once in a car mag talking about style. It said that you will likely grow tired of a car who's style that you immediately love, versus something that takes time to appreciate.

I would also say that I am unconvinced on the look of the Xd's, but not having had them in my living room for long term observation (nor am I likely to do so anytime soon!), I reserve the right to change my mind!

Brian

I didn't say they were ugly, I rather like them, but I wouldn't call them beautiful. Most people think they're "sufficiently attractive" at one extreme to "butt ugly" at the other. The monitors themselves certainly aren't ugly. In a different finish, they'd be pretty cool, actually. But they are practical. They blend in and most people find that, in a normal environment, they blend in enough to be essentially unnoticeable.
Well, a reasonably sized minority of people love the look. The red/maple is hit or miss because it has two non-neutral colors. I'd prefer gray or silver/maple, but it is what it is. The special dark is actually very attractive to the grand majority people. I'd like to see a lighter cherry with black, but I doubt we'll see it unless the "classic" finish dies off because of "special dark".
I doubt that happened. I don't see the ad, but I'll bet it's a dealer trying to get around shipping/pricing restrictions. People rarely make a $6K purchase without running it by the wife.
Huh. Everyone who's commented thinks it's very attractive. I think it's beautiful for a simple box.
I'm pushing for a "titanium" finish, but I don't know if that is going to fly or not. They did say they might try it to see if it looks good. I'm sure it would. With no real surface features, the look is "none more black"

I have.

If I dropped $6K on speakers, I'd be more interested in the sound myself...to each their own priorities I guess.
I buy for performance, others buy for looks...maybe because their realized performance doesn't always measure up to the looks they went for? I'd also prefer the speaker co. put as much R&D $ as possible into the performance...

I don't want to look at them, I want to enjoy listening to them.

I think the Xd color combination is pretty ugly, too. I'm also of the opinion that the whole setup has too many curves. The only analogy I can come up with is that of the BMW 5-series Chris Bangle re-design. The special dark is better than the two-toned version, but I'd still not be thrilled with having them front and center in a living room. Good thing that I can't justify spending that much on two channels--if I could, I'd be wrestling with an inner debate about form vs. function.

I have found that people are either startled or blown away by the looks, but even the detractors warm up to it over time. I think, like any radical design, it has to "settle in" to your mind before it looks good. There are vehicles that I thought were ugly at first and now love. CDs that I couldn't stand and now are my favorites. It's just the way it works. And, yes, it looks better in person. And as mentioned above, it's a very dense, poured composite, not plastic (and MDF). More like Corian countertops. Incredibly low resonance.

You know, I stayed up later than I normally do last night, just so that I could fully answer the questions asked of me here; only to see this morning, that last night's efforts were a total waste of my time. AVS had a problem with the time stamping on one of their servers, so my posts were among the 450 deleted from yesterday and early this morning. For me, the moment is lost and I don't feel like trying to re-write was lost.

Detail are here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/annou...ouncementid=92

By definition, the Xd cabinet material IS plastic. Plastic is not just a singular material, but rather, it is also a process by which certain types of material are formed or manufactured. The word plastic comes from Latin plasticus of molding and from the Greek plastikos from plassein to mold or form. The noun is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

1 : a plastic substance; specifically : any of numerous organic synthetic or processed materials that are mostly thermoplastic or thermosetting polymers of high molecular weight and that can be made into objects, films, or filaments

For those that are curious about what the cabinets are actually made of, Chris Byrne at NHT detailed this in their May 2005 newsletter. Here is some of what he said:

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

"...we are constantly experimenting with new finishes comprised of polyester-based, solid particle paints."

So, by definition, the Xd stands and cabinets are made of, and painted with, plastic materials. Now granted, this is very nice plastic; and even notably acoustically inert plastic; but it is still, nevertheless, very much PLASTIC.

I think you said this

I'm not so sure I'm following that definition in a way that leads me to the same conclusion. Even if it is technically "plastic", it has little resemblance to what people typically think of as "plastic". From a sensory perspective, it has more in common with marble. There are few speakers I'd like to have fall on my head *less* than an XdS. A typical high-end bookshelf speaker weights 20-25lbs/cubic foot, maybe even 30lbs/cubic foot. The XdS weighs ~50lbs/cubic foot. The Classic bookshelf speakers average about 32lbs/cubic foot.

I'm not sure it's even technically a "plastic." If it's main composition is resin, fiberglass, and wood components, then calling it plastic at all is quite a stretch.

Wood is definitely not plastic.

Metal is definitely not plastic.

I wouldn't have considered fiberglass plastic, but isn't fiberglass just glass and resin?

So it comes down to the question of resin. I think it is technically an organic polymer, which takes it a long way towards being a plastic, but it's certainly not what people normally think of as plastic (as Alimentall said).

Fiberglass is a plastic.

We can split hairs about whether a material is strictly speaking plastic per se, but we can not argue that loosely speaking it very definitely is a plastic material. For those wanting to chase the answer (strictly speaking) take a glance at what wikipedia say here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic

When you look at the history of plastic, you can see there a some similarities to the material bakelite (phenolic). I found some parallels in this:

"Baekeland found that mixtures of phenol (C6H5OH) and formaldehyde (HCOH) formed a sticky mass when mixed together and heated, and the mass became extremely hard if allowed to cool and dry.

...He continued his investigations and found that the material could be mixed with wood flour, asbestos, or slate dust to create "composite" materials with different properties.

...Phenolic plastics have been largely replaced by cheaper and less brittle plastics, but they are still used in applications requiring its insulating and heat-resistant properties. For example, some electronic circuit boards are made of sheets of paper or cloth impregnated with phenolic resin."

Which leads us to fiberglass:

"In 1939, IG Farben filed a patent for "polyepoxide" or "epoxy". Epoxies are a class of thermoset plastic that form cross-links and "cure" when a catalyzing agent, or "hardener", is added. After the war they would come into wide use for coatings, "adhesives", and composite materials.

Composites using epoxy as a matrix include glass-reinforced plastic, where the structural element is glass fiber, and "carbon-epoxy composites", in which the structural element is carbon fiber. Fiberglass is now often used to build sport boats, and carbon-epoxy composites are an increasingly important structural element in aircraft, as they are lightweight, strong, and heat resistant."

While I certainly don't profess to having the science background to claim anything with absolute certainty here, I do feel safe in saying that most people that see the Xd and Classic series cabinets would agree that some sort of plastic material is being used in their construction. That is not to say plastic cabinets are bad thing, just that there need not be a correction interjected whenever the association is made between these cabinets and the (in my view) aptly applied plastic description.

Point taken.

Except that "plastic" has a highly negative connotation as far as looks and build quality and I don't think the description is warranted. Especially with the Special Dark finish which doesn't look plastic at all.

Well, I think most people can tell stone based, molded compounds and corian from plastic, but most people don't make much distinction between "differant" kinds of plastics.

Why does plastic have to carry such a negative connotation with it? I mean really, is a new Corvette Z-06 something you are going to pass on, simply because it is made of plastic? You would be hard pressed to find many expensive luxury cars that aren't clad in plastic on both ends. A lot of ultra spendy boats are made of plastic; heck, even my overpriced Mont Blanc pen is made out of plastic. Look to the audio world and you will find more than a few outrageously priced plastic turntables. Plastic products can be found in so many pricey goods these days, that the negative connotations once associated with plastic products in years past, just doesn't hold sway the way it once did.

The point is: none of these items are lesser products, simply because some of their parts are made out of plastic. Because plastic is the most used material in the world, does not mean it always denotes a lesser quality product. Quality plastic is not an oxymoron; as it is the engineering and production methods that go in to making the final product, that in the end determines the merits of any companies use of plastic technologies. Much like the realization that people will never ignore the LS-7 under the hood of a Z-06, because GM chose to shroud it in a plastic body; it is likewise improbable that people will completely discount the sound quality of your speaker, solely because the cabinets are sculpted out of a hi-tech plastic compound.

Personally, I think you need to embrace the technological pluses of engineered plastics and stand tall about their many advantages, as there is just no getting past the fact that you are now selling plastic speakers! Mark my words; your credibility will be your undoing, if you don't call this spade a spade!

Say it with me John: I sell plastic speakers and I'm proud!! Say it again, and say it loud!! I sell plastic speakers and I'm proud!!

some of the nht experts here have probably already mention how these speakers sound, but this thread is 20 pages long now. i can not read the entire 20 pages. would someone please tell me where are the reviews for these speakers? like what page they are on. thanks for your help.

also are there any professional review for these speakers yet?

i'm looking into buying the the aboslute zero, the classic two, or the m5 for my apartment.

TIA

rlguy,
I happened to listen to the NHT Classic Two and The NHT M6 for my first time today.I can tell you this.The AZ is tiny.The two is rather small but has a very smooth sound,a little brighter to me than the SB-3 but a little nicer overall.Now the M^,that was nice a$$ non-fatigue speaker.I could listen to those all day loud and not get tired of them whereas I think the Twos would not be listened to quite as long.The L5 was used as surrounds in front and rear and I personally didnt like them.Maybe it was the fact that they were so close to the wall or that they were used for surround duties,but they didnt sound like the M6 at all to me.If I had the bucks I would probably purchase the M6 but I dont think the Classic Three is going to be nothing short of spectacular.Thwe Twos are sweet but the Three may be leaps and bounds better than the Two.I will let you know soon when my Threes get delivered.

Get the T5/M5/L5 combo! You will never look back!