Why isn't NHT more popular? (1 Viewer)

[Larry Vale]

If my bedroom wasn't looking as much like a sound stage as it is I'd use 'em as well as I have an extra pair now. With the 5ES I just got I could always use a rear channel for 6 or 7.1.
Incidentally I also have a set of 4 SB2's an SC1 and a sunfire sub in my house overseas. The only reason I have the expensive sunfire is it was the only thing I could "sneak" through customs as if it was a subwoofer for the car.
I think I'm sold on em
Larry

 

[AdamO]

Gerry:

I also use the Zero's as surrounds and am quite happy with them so far. They do not have the same base responce the SuperTwo's have but they do have the same clear highs and mids.

If you want another pair of SuperTwo's I'd suggest watching eBay. Onecall.com also has them for $448.20. I bought all of my NHT speakers (other then the SuperSub) from them and was very pleased.

 

[Gerry East]

Colin and Adam--

Thanks for the replies. I'll check out onecall; I appreciate the info. Do either of you think there would be an advantage in using SuperOnes for surrounds instead of SuperZeros, or because of crossing over to a sub, would the SuperZeros do as well as the SuperOnes?

Thanks again.

 

[AdamO]

Personally I'm happy with the SuperZero's. However I would consider all of this before making a decision. And as you mentioned how your crossover is setup would make a big difference.
Size of your room
Mine is rather small. I also don't need a lot of power as I live in an apartment and my neighbors wouldn't be very happy. I have a feeling the SuperOne's would have better all around performance (even with a subwoofer) because of the size of the main driver (6.5" vs. 4.5").
Size of speakers
The SuperOne's are 11.65"H x 7.25"W x 8.5"D vs. the SuperZero's which are 9"H x 5.5"W x 5"D.
Base Response
The SuperOne's are 57Hz-25KHz (+/-3dB) vs. the SuperZero's which are 85Hz-25Hz +/-3dB.
Price
The SuperOne's are about $70 more then the SuperZero's at onecall.com.
My main decision factor was size. I wanted something close to a satellite size speaker. I have setup the SuperZero's as fronts along with the SuperSub just to hear what they would sound like and I was pretty impressed, although it was no competition against the SuperTwo's.

 

[ColinM]

Gerry -

I for one was almost happier with the zero's out front, since I have to run my CD player full range through the mains and their lack of bass was an advantage, not meddling with the sub and all that.

I have no problem recommending them as surrounds.

 

[Gerry East]

Thanks for the comments. Since I have space my living room is pretty large), I'm going with another pair of SuperTwos for the surrounds and a SuperOne for the center. Can't wait to have an all NHT speaker setup! Thanks again for the feedback.

 

[Hakan Powers]

I'm happy with my NHT setup but I'm having trouble finding matching speakers.

I currently run a 2.5i/1.5/AC-1 5.1 rig and am looking at options for center-back speakers in a 6.1 configuration.

Do any of the new series have the same drivers as the old focused image geometry series?

 

[Charles Gurganus]

Your best bet is audiogon.com Then do a search on NHT. There are several choices that match your needs.

 

[Will Gatlin Jr]

In my rig I run VT-2's (front/rear) w/Super Two Towers for my side spks, and a double VS-2A centre. The more power you feed`em, the better they sing. I love their clean sound. I bi-amp w/225 watts for the highs/mids, and 250 watts for the lows. Very dynamic!!

 

[Lewis Besze]

Well I only heard the VT1.2 and the Super2 and wasn't impressed at all.The VT1.2 actually gave a headache,it was so "bright".
I haven't heard the new line yet,the stackable "sub/sat",what's it called?

 

[Haru]

got a set of 2.9s, an AudioCenter-2, a pair of 1.5s for the back, and a pair of SubTwoi subwoofers. GOing to add a another pair of 1.5s to make it a 7.1 system.

 

[Mark Austin]

IMO, NHT suffered from two problems. First was that their sound was a bit over-analytical, which could sometimes be considered cold. Because of this they really didn't mate well with most receivers. You needed carefully chosen separates to make them really shine, or so they wouldn't become fatiguing. Second was the fact that they were fairly difficult to drive up and down the line. Which again, made strong amplification a must. I haven't listened to any of their new stuff, but the old line up was very fine stuff.

 

[Will Gatlin Jr]

Haru...

My nephew has 2.5i's for the front/rear, with the AC-2, and 1 pair of sub two's. The only thing I tell him is he's missing a good 5x200 power amp. This is his first big system, so he doesn't get the extra amp situation. He feels it sounds great to him. So I leave him alone.

Mark...

I couldn't have said it better!! I have the older VT-2's, and I love to drive the shit out of them. They like to stand through it all, even at the low passages.

 

[Haru]

mark,

while the NHTs do have a cooler sound than, say, B&Ws, they are also superbly musical. The clarity, the octave to octave smoothness, the microdynamics, all are remarkable. And while NHTs are not very efficient, they ARE pretty tame, mostly resistive loads. I was driving my pair of super ones with a 60wpc Rotel and boy, would they SING! I never felt I needed more power. The same was true for my 2.3as which are driven by a 85wpc Yamaha, and then by a 100wpc Hafler power amp. My 2.9s, which were the same speaker as the 3.3 with a 10" instead of 12" also sang quite contendedly with a 100wpc receiver. Yes, the 250wpc power amp was very useful, but it wasn't necessary.

I never found any of the NHTs fatiguing. The only complaint I've got with the NHTs is that they require very careful positioning. Give them that and they image like magic. don't give them that and the magic falls apart.

I am rather surprised that NHT isn't hot in the market anymore. 3-6 years ago, all the talk was focused around NHT and there were to be found in every magazine.

 

[Haru]

will,

I called and asked NHT if they thought that it would be worth swapping the 1.5s in the back for a set of 2.5i. I was told not to bother because the sub 70Hz area where the 2.5i holds any advantage over the 1.5 is best handled by the subwoofers anyway.

I have a Denon 3802 with 110w x 7. But I don't power the 2.9s with it. I use the 250wpc stereo amp for that, and they get only 50Hz and higher signals. below that goes to the two SubTwoi's. the subtwoi uses two of the 3.3's 12" drivers (modified for sub use) rather than the Sub Two's dual 10" (subwoofing version of the 2.9 driver, itself a shrunk 3.3 unit)

I have more than enough power to deafen myself. The receiver has never operated with the volume higher than -3db.

So, yes, the NHTs love power, but they do very well with less, as long as its good quality.......

 

[Will Gatlin Jr]

Haru...

This is one time I have to disagree with NHT in the case of my nephew's set up. He had the 1.5's in the rear, and they didn't do it for him. When picked up another pair of 2.5i's, it gave him the overall soundfield that he wanted. I must say, his rig sounds very good. It would even sound better with extra amp channels. Hopefully, he'll read this post.

 

[Haru]

will,

now I am confused. NHT and One Call both advised me to do the same thing, but your nephew's experience doesn't agree with them. What am I to do?

 

[Haru]

I have to add that if I do go with towers for the rear, they will be 2.9s as well. THe thing is that I am not yet able to justify two pairs of 2.9s for the back (p[lans for a 7.1 system). So perhaps I should do nothing till I can.

 

[Will Gatlin Jr]

With the 1.5's, my nephew wasn't getting the entire blending procees of (enough) bass with the LFE (.1). The bass was being routed to his sub (and or) front L&R spks. With the 2.5i's (rear) the bass (more is better) is seperate over his entire system. The rear spks do their thing, the subs do their things, and the L&R spks do their thing.

This is the same raeson why I use all full range tower spks with two Velodyne subs. I want my system to have power, be dynamic, clean sound, and the blending process o the bass and the LFE over my entire listening roon. And believe me, that's what I get.

In todays DD/DTS soundtracks, there's plenty of bass in them rears. Way to many people have the bass up front, I like mine to be spraed all over my room. When the big impact hits, I want the whole room to hit.

 

[Haru]

Will,

I think we'll have to chalk this up to individual set ups then. I found that I could not get a good set up having the subs overlapping the mains. There was a muddiness to the sound that I didn't like. Now, I run the 2.9s crossed over at 50Hz.

I am not sayings its always like this because back when I had a pair of B&W 602 and a Paradigm PS1200, I'd get best results letting the B&Ws run full range, and setting the sub low pass to 50Hz. this gave me the tighest, cleanest sound. I am guessing that this was because the B&Ws were rolling off normally, and the sub was filling in what was missing. But would this have worked if the B&Ws had solid output down to 30Hz. I do not know, but I suspect not.

I think we are also getting into the issue of bass directionality. I find my Subtwoi's are not localizable. The whole room, as you say, "hits". The owners manual of the Subtwoi advises that even if the main speakers are full range as the 2.9s most certainly are, they should be crossed over to the subs, rather than let run full range. I find that for my situation they are right.

Considering that I cross the 2.9s over, I would certainly do that for the 2.5s as well, so perhaps its best that I stay with 1.5s. It is looking increasingly like what i need is 4 AudioCenter-2s for the back. this speaker's 80+ Hz performance is much more similar to the 2.9s than the 1.5 or 2.5is, and with the sub covering below that, I would be fully set.

so I guess I should start the search for 4 AC2s.....