I am amazed by NHT SB-1 speakers. What about SB-3 or SuperOne, even better?

My reaction to your question is to advise you look at their website. They are quite clear in their description of themselves that they are most known for and most proud of their bookshelf speakers. I suspect they determined tower speakers did not propel thei business as well as bookshelfs.

And there are plenty of good speakers out there now in the category of big and expensive. NHT has carved a niche for themselves that I respect deeply.

 

I'm well aware of what NHT has said about their current speakers. I do find it odd that a company which got on the audiophile map with the 3.3 and 2.9 no longer offer speakers like that. I know the guys who did those speakers are long gone from the company but I still they're their missing an opportunity. Carry on.

 

I have a set of NHT Super 2`s and they sound pretty darn good ! Not my main setup but still...
I have the NHT small outdoor ones too.. Not bad at all

 

Does TAS?

 

And I think they mesh with subs quite well. I had two combos, the SuperZeroes & 8" SW1P and SB1 and a now blown up (but fixable, according to NHT) SubTwo ( 2 s 10" ) and I'll be danged if I could tell it was two parts.Warren and other old pros might be able to, but not this rube.

I'd sit there and try to imagine whether it sounded like a pair of towers and it sort of did and sort of didn't. Especially with the SZs, it didn't actually sound like speakers at all, but rather just music in space- within the context that speakers and electronics inflict artificial characteristics so you know it isn't real, blah, blah, blah. (And that's fine with me- I ain't that big of a geek.)

 

I'll be very interested to read about SO 2.1 vs SB2. I thought SB2 was smoother and more coherent/balanced than original SO. Played louder (and lower) without paining the ear. The SB2 didn't image quite as well, IIRC. Is the 2.1 more "natural" sounding? The SB2 was a bit euphonic. Can the new one (2.1) play loud more gracefully? Is it smoother than the original?

And this is strictly a "rear-view mirror" question; SB2 vs SB3. I had a couple of chances at SB3 purchases and couldn't pull the trigger, the SB2s being very good in their placed spots. I wondered if my NAD integrated could provide enough oomph and whether the 3 would boom or be unbalanced in the same spot (where they had to be). But I've always wondered ...

 

You are not the first to tell me that the NHT management has changed so much, that its not the same company. I remember when their slender towers with the woofer on the side was quite a new idea. But I don't think they were the first to do it. Now, I associate them with very fine bookshelfs and compact home theater speakers. So even my image of them has changed over the years.

 

Yes these are two comparisons that I am also very interested in doing. Stay tuned. I have a feeling that the SB models are very hard to beat. I have only heard the SB-1 as yet.

 

Warren, I respect your take on all this but we come at it from different sides. When Bob was still there, he and I talked from time to time and he told me about the new SuperOne 2.1s but said he didn't think I'd hear a significant difference over my original SuperOnes, and I didn't. Perhaps the rest of my system didn't/doesn't reveal these vast differences that you hear.

 

I don't know anyone from the past or present of NHT. I only know what I hear with my own ears, listening to the models I currently have in my possession. So I cannot answer anything about what and why the direction of NHT has changed, nor how differences in the sonic taste of newer management compares to previous management.

I can say that sonically, John Atkinson of Stereophile, and a writer unknown to me at The Absolute Sound have printed that they like the advances NHT has recently made, and my listening impressions concur.

Obviously some things at NHT have changed, and you may have personal reasons to wish they hadn't. I can tell you, from listening only, the company is still on the right track and their competitors making high-end bookshelf speakers had better be careful about the products they are currently offering.

Now, if you want to talk about a change in management totally ruining a company, let's talk about Thiel. In this case I know the Thiel family and Kathy Gornik, and when they sold the company name, the speakers themselves became destined to failure.

 

The company has undergone many changes, but still has remained consistent to the basic design goals. They've had some pretty bright designers, starting with Ken Kantor and Bill Bush into the late 90s. The angled designs were Ken's specialty, I think. IIRC, the famous 1259 woofer and other drivers were Bill's babies. I think Bill headed the change from Super to SB when Ken left, but that could be wrong.

Jack Hidley was in charge for the Classic series and took them into "Class A" territory with the XD 3-piece digital system and the T6 and T5 modular systems. But I think it got awfully complicated with the amps and processing electronics, manufacturing issues and ownership seemed to constantly change. No idea where Jack ended up, but co-founder Chris Byrne stepped back in, simplified the business model by just going with the Classic line and then refining the old favorites in the Super series.

So they're no longer very famous and they don't swing for the fences, but hopefully doubles and triples can still win some ballgames.

 

Well, after passing the NHT room at CES shows for many years, finally I am taking NHT very seriously. Their bookshelf speakers sound phenomenal to me and seem to be getting better than ever.

 

All I can say is that I have two sets of 2.1s and one set of the original SuperOnes and they are all terrific. Then there are the SuperZeros which may be even better than the SuperOnes. I have a set of the originals and the current version and they are simply fantastic, especially for acoustic jazz. Whatever NHT did then and does now, just works. I really am interested in the C3s but not enough to try a pair as I'm so satisfied (used to?) the SuperOnes.

 

I don't know whether Chris Byrne still retain some ownership to NHT, but he has retired.

I mentioned earlier in this thread regarding my visit to NHT's corporate showroom, it was also during this visit that Chris Byrne took me to back to NHT's own listening room for a demo to a "yet-to-be-released new speaker". That speaker turned out to be the revived NHT SuperOne 2.1.

 

Looks like I shouldn't have consulted Wikipedia re: Chris.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-b...st_profile-result-card_result-card_full-click

 

Nice. Love that you have plenty of space available to adjust speaker positioning. What can you tell me about those stands?

 

All I can say is I love the sound of my 2.5i floor standers that are hooked up to modest equipment in my family room. I listen all day while I work and the sound is just great - and I am sitting way off to one side of them as well!

 

As I continue to listen to the brand-new NHT SuperOne 2.1 speakers, for the past few days, they are either breaking-in and sounding better-and-better, or as I listen to a greater variety of music, I am simply appreciating them more-and-more. These are definitely keepers.

My repair part for the used SB-3 (Ebay) speakers should arrive from NHT today, so they will be the next model I listen to (I'm pretty excited about those), then the used SB-2 (also from Ebay), and finally a brand new pair of NHT's current model in this category, the C-3, on their way from Amazon.

One pair (probably the SuperOne 2.1) will stay in my bedroom with a McCormack Micro amp, another pair will go with our big TV and Sony 1000es universal player in The Audio Home's dining room with one of the EL-84 tube amps in my collection (either a RM-10, AN P1 or restored HeathKit monos), and all the other pairs will go back on Ebay. Well... no, I still love the SB-1 pair, that I started this all with. So they will go in a box and saved for some future mini-system application. They are so cute in gloss white, and they image like a dickens.

 

I don`t understand why, in general, their efficiency rating is as low as it is.

 

Most of their speakers are a sealed design, which is not as efficient as a vented cabinet.

 

Back in the 90s NHT used to be pretty controversial. Some of the line was ripped for being overly bright. Robert (?) Greene just lambasted the 2.9 in either Fi or TAS for being unlistenably bright and others typically mentioned that upstream electronics were extra important. I assumed that the SB series was a reaction to that.

Funny thing, Stereo Review/S&V did a group text of 6 or so speakers, in which the SB1 was pretty well savaged. (I think there was a Sound Dynamics, a Monitor Bronze, maybe the B&W 302 and can't remember the others.) It was judged to be thin and bright and one of the lesser imagers. I was a bit shaken, but also a bit annoyed that most of the others were 6 inchers and rather different animals.

The best review I remember was from the rather stodgy Howard Ferstler of the Sensible Sound. He listened to and liked several of the models in the line and especially seemed to like the SB1 and the 10" sub, saying "we're talking really good sound here"

 

I heard them at a dealer and would love to have found a way to get a pair past my wife. Unfortunately, I also would have needed a bigger amp. They seemed really fun, though.

 

As I wrote above, I like the SuperOne 2.1 so much, I decided to leave them in the system to experience their sound with a little break in. They did improve to an even higher level, but it didn't take many hours. About 10 hours was enough, and they have not changed since.

So, yesterday I changed speakers again. This time to the C-3. I wondered how could they be any better, maybe just add a little more extended low bass? Well no; only bad news. Now I am VERY surprised and somewhat bewildered.

The sound of the C-3, in the same system as all the other NHT speakers I've heard, is extremely disappointing. They are bright, forward, lack imaging, are very much reduced in dynamic contrasts, and are not revealing of subtle details. The quantity and quality of bass is severly lacking as well. They don't sound like smaller speakers, compared to other NHTs, they just dont sound like NHTs!

The C-3s are so disappointing, that I cannot listen to them in this system any more. I want to move onto the SB3 and SB2, then come back to these with a different set of electronics. Maybe the speakers are fine, just not "in synergy" with this amplifier or in this room. Stay tuned to give this model of NHT another chance.

 

Well, I couldn't sleep after my disappointing experience hearing the C-3, and the SB-3 waiting to be heard. So, I changed them and listened a bit. Ahhhh, now we are back to the NHT sound I have grown fond of: dynamic and detailed, with tonal balance just to my liking, and beautifully specific imaging. Voices and acoustic instruments are wonderfully natural sounding. Highs are clean without being bright. Midrange is excellently balanced with the treble and bass. And the bass is clean, without being overbearing. Bass seems just a little deeper than any other NHT bookshelf I've ever heard, until suddenly a true deep bass note is present, and then WOW, big speaker deep bass quality suddenly appears.

So far these SB-3, the SuperOne 2.1 and SB-1 are my favorites, but I still have a pair of SB-2 coming, I need to give the C-3 another listen with different equipment, and I'll have to hear the SB-1 again for its dynamics, clarity of subtle details, and imaging.

Too bad I don't have a pair of Classic 3 to include in this comparison. Maybe they would do what I had hoped for the C-3. Or maybe I just don't like NHT 3-way speakers.