# NHT owners welcome, past and present designs



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

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?


----------



## Pupton (Jul 15, 2006)

Hi Exocer,

New to the forum and just ran across your post. I've owned several NHT speakers over the years. I like a middle of the road speaker (laid back, but detailed) and the NHT's have always provided a great sound for the price. I currently have a set of 2.9's in my 2ch setup in my living room. They do need power (I'm using an upgraded Bryston 4B), but really sing if you provide them the little extra needed.

I'm fairly new to HT so I've been in learning/experiment mode. In my HT downstairs, I'm using 2.5's for mains, VT-1C center, and 1.3 's for surrounds. The VT-1C is the weak link as it's not providing the best imaging for my taste, but I picked it up for $25, so I can't complain  I've shuffled way too many amps (Hafler,Parasound, B&K, Adcom) in the mix and I'm currently just using a Yamaha RX-V3000 with Hafler 500 / 220s, and this setup is doing a good job for the moment. 

I've been reading some reviews on the new Classic series and would like see how they compare to my older NHT's.

Regards,

Mike


----------



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

Welcome aboard puton!
I too am curious how the Classics compare to the series of NHTs you own..I've actually read some subjective listening in favor of the superaudio series in some cases. Apparently the new Classic series starts to shine from the 3's and up. The absolute Zeros do well in surround duty but they lack the bass necessary to be used as mains. The Classic twos, from what i've heard, are a much different speaker than other NHT 6.5" 2-way speakers in "tone" some may prefer the SB-2's and some may prefer the classics...I really wish more people would get a chance to hear NHT (properly powered) the clarity my SB2's provide is superb. Transient response is excellent, shallow roll-off of the lower frequencies makes them much easier to blend with a sub than most high-tuned ported bookshelfs...

NHT is definitely the way to go


----------



## Pupton (Jul 15, 2006)

I'm thinking of finding a shop to demo the classic line. My local dealer does not stock NHT's any longer, so I'm looking to find someone within 100 miles of Columbus. I'll keep you posted.

Mike


----------



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

Exciting!


----------



## Pupton (Jul 15, 2006)

Well after hearing them, I've got Fours/Threes/3C coming...the mid/treble they've created really adds more than I thought it would and will be my initial setup for HT... still not sure for 2-ch...I'll experiment with 3.3s, 2.9s, Fours... I've also revcd feedback on AVS that Three's / Subs may be best option of all....so, my dad has some of my other nht's... I think I'll bring everything to my place & do a full demo of all my speakers to make a decision... I'll keep you posted...


----------



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

Exciting! Keep us posted.
I knew the classics were as good as everyone said


----------



## Pupton (Jul 15, 2006)

Here's my initial update:

Fours came today. Did a brief demo vs. my 2.9's and they did pretty much what I expected. In my 2-ch room (17x14x9), my first impression was that I had replaced my SS pre with a tube pre. Mids and High Mid-bass was more laid back than the 2.9s, especially in the 200-400Hz range. The 2.9 bass was tighter (sealed) but the Fours were not lacking, and after some rearranging, they hit the low notes very well. The Fours soundstage was a little more relaxed, but larger. Off-axis and imaging was terrific. I listened to some old vinyl recordings and boy, it sounds sweet. I could listen to them for hours at moderate to high levels and not feel fatigued. I still love my 2.9s, but the Fours show the 2.9s shortcomings.

Next up will be the 4/3/3C setup in the HT.

Mike


----------



## Pupton (Jul 15, 2006)

Well my Dad just "inherited" my 2.9s for 2ch and the 2.5/1.3/VT-1C for HT.... he may join us on the forum shortly...he's the one who got me into stereo's back in the day, building the old Hafler DH-200s.

After setting up the Classics in my HT, they will stay there and sound very good with my setup... but I'm up in the air on 2-CH...

Robert, I had a chance to read up on your Natalie-P's - good stuff...maybe I should consider something different for 2-ch like your MTM's... I like some of RAD's designs too... I think I got the theory down to build a DIY speaker, but I'm not the best at woodworking so I've steered away from this route for some time...anyway.. time to think about it some...onder: 

Mike


----------



## nm2285 (Aug 4, 2006)

I too own(ed) the SB-2s. I bought them when I was headed off to college because I found them for 1/2 price from an authorized retailer. This was just before I really got into the AV stuff, and so I knew they were supposed to be good, but had never heard them; I just needed a bookshelf speaker to take with me since I couldn't fit my Klipsch SF-2s in my dorm room. When they showed up, damned if i didn't prefer them to my Klipsch!

They, for me, truly were the start to the obssession we all share. They may have saved me money at the time (being 1/2 price), but boy oh boy that didn't transfer in the long run.

As a note, my brother now has them. I have since built my own design of bookshelves.


----------



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

nm2285 said:


> I too own(ed) the SB-2s. I bought them when I was headed off to college because I found them for 1/2 price from an authorized retailer. This was just before I really got into the AV stuff, and so I knew they were supposed to be good, but had never heard them; I just needed a bookshelf speaker to take with me since I couldn't fit my Klipsch SF-2s in my dorm room. When they showed up, damned if i didn't prefer them to my Klipsch!
> 
> They, for me, truly were the start to the obssession we all share. They may have saved me money at the time (being 1/2 price), but boy oh boy that didn't transfer in the long run.
> 
> As a note, my brother now has them. I have since built my own design of bookshelves.


Hey! you sound like me 
The SB-2's were also my "real" decent set of bookshelf speakers. Now I've built a pair of MTM's which are overkill from my listening room but get much louder without any distortion and can be crossed over lower. They're also more neutral instead of warm, like the NHT's which is okay. I am very curious how the classics sound though...I need to take a trip to J and R some time soon


----------



## nm2285 (Aug 4, 2006)

I always wanted to hear the other lines/models. I'd be excited to hear your impressions.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2006)

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.


----------



## khellandros66 (Jun 7, 2006)

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


----------



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

akitaboy said:


> 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.
> ...


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?


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2006)

Exocer wrote:


> 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


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> 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... :dontknow: 



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









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



> sound like my old large advents





> 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


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2006)

Hello brucek



> How many purist rules am I breaking with that mount..


.

Answer: If it works, don't fix it :laugh: 




> 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


----------



## ggallaway (May 13, 2008)

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?


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

ggallaway said:


> 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


----------



## cwall99 (Oct 15, 2008)

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.


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

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.


----------



## nsnotes (Oct 16, 2009)

Exocer said:


> 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


----------

