New NHT Classic line to replace Super Audio - Page 34

Can't you get the same deal on both, therefore it will still be 200 dollars more?

Although it doesn't appear that NHT is ready to say it, I suspect that the Evolutions will not be produced indefinitely. Perhaps that's why I found better deals on the M6 than on the Threes. Anything new usually comes with a premium, at least during the "early adopter" phase.

John has already admitted in this thread that the B5 and B6 base modules appear to have been discontinued. If that is a harbinger of things to come, then perhaps the remaining Evolution speakers' days are numbered. This may be pure speculation on my part, but I'd bet my nickel that this is the way things are going--when production is ramped up on the Classics, let's see if M6s become scarce.

While John has added a great deal of valuable input to this thread and I believe he is being honest in relating his impressions of the Threes, realize that dealers may have a conscious or subconscious incentive to extoll the virtues of newer products vs. the old.

NHT probably has something in the works, R&D, already. Classics are in the swing of things, so the boys and girls at NHT must have been on to the next project awhile ago. How long has the Evolutions been around? Might be time for Evo IIs...

Very true.

What plastic?!?

I think they are confused with the new molding on baskets of the drivers....If they arent,Im as lost as you John.

And whoever the poster was that said that the Revel M12 is a better speaker than the Three is talking out their bootay.To my ears they arejust about equivalent to the Revel M22's at $1400 less.


Oh PS. John,
I truly couldnt be happier with my Three's.Thanks for the advice.You couldnt have been more right about them.Glad I didnt go the Revel M12 route.

I would have predicted just such a response from you John, given that you have exhibited a decided propensity for seeing things only as required to sell your current product du jour; as well as your previously confessed melancholy from having beaten the Evo drum for the last five years. Your suggestion that the Denon receiver "throws out any advantage the M6 has", is decidedly short-sighted advice IMHO. In fact, you have even contradicted yourself here, as you said earlier in this very thread (Post #664) that:

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

Having already said this, you then suggest that Bob not get the NHT speakers (M6es) that are all ready optimized for in-cabinet placement; speakers that have an additional crossover specifically designed for this purpose, which would not tie him to using a receiver which you have already characterized as "woefully inadequate". I think Bob would be far better served by choosing speakers that would allow him a migration path to (say) a more suitable (better) amp and a pre/pro that offers him superior AV quality and functionality for rapidly evolving technologies; especially when those speakers don't require him to be married to an Audyssey EQ to make them work for his placement.

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

It has become obvious to me John, that your motivation for (now) giving the Evolution line the red-headed stepchild treatment, is all about your vested interest in the success of the Classic speaker line roll-out. As more impartial posters than yourself have already expressed in these pages, the Classics are not exactly the "giant-killers" you once supposed them to be. My only point here, is that in your hurry to move on to the 'next big thing' for your business, you are (IMO) unfairly characterizing the M6, in order to suit your current agenda. While I'm sure the Three is a very good speaker, the fact remains that the M6 (T6) *is* currently a Stereophile Class A rated speaker and the jury is still out on the Threes; a fact which I think is important for AVS readers to not lose sight of, while you are busy trying to throw the M6es under the bus.

Much better bass is the most obvious difference that jumps out at you right off the bat in the M12s (the bass on them will rival or exceed the SB3's), but also more detail, slam, and dynamics. Imaging/sound-staging was much more equal.

The Revels higher efficiency/sensitivity really jumps out at you at first in a direct A/B comparison without changing the volume setting, but once the level is adjusted to compensate for the difference, it is a lot closer.

I own a set of SB3s, and I hate to admit it, but I thought the M12s bested them, so I was anticipating hearing the Revels against the new Threes, but, same result.

Overall, I just flat out liked the sound of the Revels better, and when you throw in the cost difference (or, in effect, a free set of stands, however you want to look at it), it is a no brainer in my view.

But with that said however, I still would not buy the M12s simply because of how BIG they are compared to the Threes/SB-3s, and the fact that they are rear ported and would not work as well actually on/in a bookshelf like either the SB3s or the newer Threes would as I have to use them in my office rig.

For a while I had to run my M5/L5 surround set up with a Denon 3803 (crossed over at 80 Hz), and it did VERY well driving them.

I have a NAD T753 on them now, but the change was most definitely NOT any kind of huge, drastic, night and day kind of difference.

Let me help you find the path...

The entire line of Classic line of speakers have cabinets that are made of plastic. While John does not like the "highly negative connotation" that plastic carries with it, the fact remains that by definition the cabinets are exactly that: plastic. Personally, I don't find that to be a negative, given the performance possibilities, but others may find that to be problematic in terms of perceived value and aesthetics.

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

Geez, Z, feeling sensitive today?!? My point about Evo is that I've sold a ton, I still like the product, but it *is* 5 years old now and it's time *for me* to focus on something different and new. If the Three's driver technology weren't so advanced or were watered down versions of the M5/M6, then sure, Evo would still be top dog, no doubt. But that's not the case.
That's not a contradiction. Given that a Denon will be driving either one and the efficiencies are the same, there's no advantage either way when it comes to power. BUT, the Audyssey will compensate for the placement, taking away that advantage as well.
I said *most* Japanese receivers. The 4xxx series Denons are usually sufficient. 3xxx series Denons usually don't do that well. Please reread those sentences.
You mean like the NHT preamp/amp that also can deal with this stuff? However, I do believe Bob already bought the Denon.
Oh, please. Are you suggesting that, as good as M6s are, that there's no room for improvement? I think you should hear both the Classic series and Xds to see what is possible before assuming that NHT has made no strides in the last 5 years. Used properly as they are, metal drivers have a natural resolution advantage over polypropylene.
If I was worried about vested interests, I would have been dismissing the Classics as they haven't had sufficient availability to make me any damned money. The fact that I'm excited about something from which I can't make much money should be ample proof of my innocence.
For every person that has posted (1? 2?) that say they aren't giant-killers (or, at least, "giant embarrassers"), I can whip out two or three that will state otherwise. Not because they are perfect, but because they are embarrassingly good for such little money. Xd is the *real* giant-killer. Threes just make most other stuff look bad in performance, price, aesthetics or all three.
Oh, c'mon, that's just crap. I tell lots of people that they should *keep* their Evolutions and not worry about the Classics. And, to be honest, I could make *more* money selling Evos. Why would I talk someone out of spending $1200 or $4000 to spend $800 or $1800? Because I'm so greedy and biased? Bob asked me "if it were you, which would you buy" and the answer was "the 3/3c combo, no doubt". Because that's what I honestly feel. Now, I admit that I do prefer the *tonal* balance of the M6 a little better, but the increase in resolution and clarity and "blackness" to the background is enough to sway me. After all, you can EQ in tonal balance, but you can't EQ in resolution. There are plenty of people who will prefer the Evos over the Threes, no doubt. I also have people trading in Evo, despite my admonitions to "don't worry, be happy". But they come in and listen and some say "I'm still happy" and others say "I have to have them".

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

I feel compelled to end this stupid plastic stuff.

So here is my four cents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You would be incorrect. It is MDF. The midbass frames are BMC, for good reason.
Notice they said "in our new Xd line"
No, I was talking about BMC.
I'm not contradicting myself, you just think I am.

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

You are absolutely right John: my bad!!

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

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

"Our cabinets are made with MDF, a board manufactured primarily of wood residues from the production of lumber and plywood with a low percentage of virgin tree wood. We finish them with 7 coats of hand-finished polyurethane applied in a "solid particle" method that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that about covers it.

I concur.

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

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

Pretty much.

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