Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now




PLEASE COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED FIELDS BELOW... THANKS!

REQUIRED FIELDS ON THIS PAGE
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL OF THESE

Username
Password
Confirm Password
Email Address
Confirm Email Address
Random Question
Random Question #2




User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
PLEASE READ BELOW PRIOR TO ENTERING AN EMAIL ADDRESS!

ATTENTION!

YOU MUST ACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT!

Activation requires you reply to an email we will send you after you register... if you do not reply to this email, you will not be able to view certain areas of the forum or certain images... nor will you be able download software.

AN INVALID EMAIL ADDRESS WILL CAUSE YOUR ACCOUNT TO BE DELETED!

See our banned email list here: Banned Email List

We DO NOT respond to spamcop, boxtrapper and spamblocker emails... please add @hometheatershack DOT com to your whitelist prior to registering or you will get nowhere on your registration.


Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-24-09 05:57 AM
nsnotes
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

Quote:
Exocer wrote: View Post
Hey, I own the NHT SB-2's from yesteryear's SuperAudio Series. They are a punchy speaker capable of some serious volume in medium to small sized rooms. Bass response falls off at about 50hz and upper response at around 20khz (measured with my spl meter nearfield). They do require a lot of power to perform at their peak however. You are rewarded with awesome transient response and excellent clarity, while still being a "polite" laid back speaker.

Anyone else care to share their experiences?
SB2s are quite good speakers, of course in their price range. I would say rather well balanced, without obvious coloration, particularly in bass domain. Lowes dont go very down, but thankfully to close box design dont roll off sharply and at the same time are quite transparent (for the price range ;-). And still bass can be quite convincing. Mids are clear and highs not offensive, still clear though. Maybe not the most dynamic speaker, rather as you say on laid back side of performance, but can play loud, very loud and still clear. Good choice for lower mid level range, particularly if bought as bargain in second hand.

nsnotes
09-15-09 06:44 PM
cavchameleon
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

Cwall99,

Hi! Great speakers. I remember them well as I had the 1.5's with the same design (slightly different drivers). They were great as front main monitors and am sure they are just as good for surround duties. The angled baffle was mainly for two things, so that the speakers would be already 'toed-in' when placed in front/forward position and to keep any internal walls from being parallel with each other with respect to the front baffle (drivers). Glad you like them and are still using them! I've been through may renditions of NHT's ever since the advent of the SuperZeros.
09-14-09 10:34 AM
cwall99
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

I got my NHT 1.3As in 1992. They were actually my first purchase ever from a boutique audio shop. I was amazed at how much better they sounded than the speakers they replaced (a pair of Marantz HD-440s that I bought in September of 1979 at Highland Appliance in Saginaw, MI - one of the precursors to the big box stores of today).

A couple of years ago, when I bought a pair of B&W DM603 s3s and an LCR600 to go across the front of my system, I moved the NHTs to the back. I don't know if it's because of that angled front panel, but the NHTs seem like they're ideally suited to providing rear-channel coverage.

Anyone out there have any thoughts on this? Thanks.
08-05-09 08:33 AM
cavchameleon
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

Quote:
ggallaway wrote: View Post
I have NHT Superzero XU speakers for all 7 channels, I am wondering if it would be worth getting an outboard amplifier or not, these speakers have a rated sensitivity of 86db (not very sensitive as I understand it). My current AVR is an Onkyo 705 and according to them it reaches 100w/channel two channels driven. and the quoted maximum on the NHT's is 100watts. However, I have read some say that even at lower levels a quality outboard amp even if rated higher than the rms maximum on the speakers will sound better. so what do you think?
Hi,

Not sure if you had this answered. Your receiver will be fine with those speakers. In order to increase the volume by 3db, you would have to increase the power by 10, so unless you play at ear-bleeding levels, you would most likely not notice the difference. At normal listening levels, you are probably only using around 5 watts/ch (at lot more just during peaks).

Ray
07-18-09 12:50 AM
ggallaway
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

I have NHT Superzero XU speakers for all 7 channels, I am wondering if it would be worth getting an outboard amplifier or not, these speakers have a rated sensitivity of 86db (not very sensitive as I understand it). My current AVR is an Onkyo 705 and according to them it reaches 100w/channel two channels driven. and the quoted maximum on the NHT's is 100watts. However, I have read some say that even at lower levels a quality outboard amp even if rated higher than the rms maximum on the speakers will sound better. so what do you think?
09-22-06 04:02 PM
akitaboy
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

Hello brucek

Quote:
How many purist rules am I breaking with that mount..
.

Answer: If it works, don't fix it


Quote:
My second system in my office uses JBL L-36's that I bought in 1976 and have since heavily modified the crossovers. How's that for "west-coast" sound speakers.
It is impossible to get any more west-coast than the 70's JBL models. Yes I'm dating myself, but I'm not doing that intentionally. I'm just not up to speed on the new 'HT speak'. Also, I agree with you about the weaknesses of the VT-1C,
but I love it because I can hear dialogue clearly in my quite unsophisticated 5.1 system. Someday I would like to graduate to a 6.1 or 7.1 system, but I have absolutely no space availablee for rear speakers.

akitaboy
09-22-06 02:21 PM
brucek
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

Quote:
Well my Dad just "inherited" my 2.9s for 2ch and the 2.5/1.3/VT-1C for HT....

In my family it goes the other way. I donate my replaced equipment to my kids, who accept it with open arms..

Interesting to see the NHT VT-1C mentioned, because it was a center channel that I have held onto in my closet for many years, since I felt it had such a nice clear sound, but lacked somewhat in bottom end. I knew I would eventually have a use for it.

About a month ago I upgraded from a Bryston SP1 processor to the new SP2 model and decided to incorporate a rear back channel for 6.1.

I simply don't have the room for 7.1, but since I had a spare Bryston amp and that NHT VT-1C sitting around I decided to go for the 6.1 setup.

It sounds quite nice. I don't have a lot of room between my 5.1 rears surrounds, so I never felt I was really missing the back channel, but I admit it presents a continuous wall of sound behind me.

It was a tight fit, but here's a picture of the NHT VT-1C mounted behind my couch. How many purist rules am I breaking with that mount...



-----------------------------

Attachment 795

-----------------------------

Quote:
sound like my old large advents
Quote:
and are a bit bright like most west coast speakers back in my early days
Man are you dating yourself. My second system in my office uses JBL L-36's that I bought in 1976 and have since heavily modified the crossovers. How's that for "west-coast" sound speakers.

brucek
09-22-06 01:33 PM
akitaboy
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

Exocer wrote:
Quote:
Have you have a chance to compare the Classics to the 2.9's?? What would you say are the most noticable differences between the two?
Hello Exocer, nice pics.
Yes, I am Pupton's parent, and that means that I have the chance to really enjoy participating in a mutual hobby (HT)
in which we can share time and equipment. He is much more experienced in HT so I learn a lot from him.
He has also been a member of this forum longer than I. This is my first quote, and as you can see, I don't even know how to quote properly.

I have had a chance to compare the Classic Fours and with the 2.9's using the exact same electronics.

The 2.9's are very detailed in the mids and highs, and are a bit bright like most west coast speakers back in my early days in audio, but they are not overly so. The 2.9's also have tight, very detailed bass, and reach very low for 2 channel listening. They are without a doubt the best speakers I've ever owned. They can also be easily bi-amped because the woofer is in a separate compartment in the speaker cabinet, as are the mids and tweeter in a compartment, there are 2 sets of binding posts.

The Classic Fours have warm and detailed mids and uppers. They were a total suprise. Some people may prefer the warmer sound, which of course would be the same as the Classic Threes since they have the same drivers. The Fours
do not have the detail in the bass like the 2.9's but they do go plenty low. They, like the 2.9's are easily bi-amped, with separate compartments for the upper and lower end. They are in essence a Classic Three with a woofer.

I would have to say that running the Cassic Threes for mids and highs and the woofers of the 2.9's gave the most enjoyable sound. So, after all is said and done, I prefer the mids and highs of the Classic Threes and/ or Fours but the bottom end of the 2.9's. And I'm not just trying to straddle the middle of the fence. My own personal choice if I had to choose would be to keep my 2.9's because I really dislike boomy and less detailed bass. My preferences are strictly my own, and I would not expect agreement, since the type of sound one likes is a personal choice.

Running Classic Threes with a good subwoofer would be another option.

Sorry for being so long winded, but I wanted to be clear about the differences, and after looking at this post, I do not think that your question has been given a satisfactory answer by said poster. I'll try to do better next time.

akitaboy
09-22-06 07:05 AM
Exocer
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

Quote:
akitaboy wrote: View Post
Hello

I'm not real good at this, so if I am doing something wrong, like interrupting, etc,
please let me know. I'm Pupton's father, and thanks to him I have a start in ht.
I inherited his NHT's and I love them. I like his new classics also, but the 2.9's have
that old ac/suspension sound like my old large advents, only better. I have much to learn,
so I'll probably keep my ears open more than I post. Thanks everyone for your help.
Hey there, its not often we (Edit:hear) from the parents. I am glad you like the 2.9's.
Have you have a chance to compare the Classics to the 2.9's?? What would you say are the most noticable differences between the two?
08-06-06 10:03 PM
khellandros66
Re: NHT owners welcome, past and present designs

I have always been impressed with the physical look of NHT speakers, its just so unfortunate that I can't find a local dealer that has them on demo for me listen to them.

~Bob
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML is not allowed!

 


For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome