NHT SB2 Speaker Review

[D700]

Back I the day, I had a complete 5.1 setup of NHT 1.5s and the matching center channel, a large water softener sized SVS Sub with a giant 8001 Marantz AVR driving. Eventually burned out the AVR but had years of fun. I sold the NHTs for about half what I paid for them, they were still in great shape. I'd love to see the 1.5s measured, I'd send them in if I still had em.

 

[xykreinov]

Still more neutral than my Klipsch """""Reference""""" RP-41M....

 

[Billy Budapest]

Whatever you do, don’t review the NHT Absolute Zero. They should have named it Absolute Crap, because that’s what it sounded like.

 

[GXAlan]

Whatever you do, don’t review the NHT Absolute Zero. They should have named it Absolute Crap, because that’s what it sounded like.

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/nht-absolute-zero-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures

 

[Billy Budapest]

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/nht-absolute-zero-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures

Yep, what I expected—the Absolute Zero has a baked-in “smiley face” frequently response. Want all your music to sound like it’s going through a 1980’s graphic equalizer set by a teenager? You got it!

 

[jaykay77]

I had these. For about a day.

Fucking Terrible. The center channel sucks ass also.

I have no idea how the same company that made the Super ones series produced this group of turds!

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Yep, what I expected—the Absolute Zero has a baked-in “smiley face” frequently response. Want all your music to sound like it’s going through a 1980’s graphic equalizer set by a teenager? You got it!

View attachment 63185

I guess we're looking at different graphs. I've never seen a flatter response in a Sound and Vision review. And
that's with the grills on. There's no smiley face--just a little bump near 100 Hz to give them some body in the absence of any real bass extension. I've heard that exact system (monitor plus sub) and was very impressed. My only real complaint was a slightly hot treble. I suspect a measurement with less smoothing would show more irregularity at 1 kHz, but that's often a problem area and difficult to deal with using a crossover simple enough to keep the price so low. I would very much like to see Amir measure them. This is a smiley face: https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/jbl_l890/ Almost the entire region from around 400 Hz to 4 kHz is ramped down several dB, whereas the NHT is virtually flat from 200 Hz to almost 10,000 Hz. Whoa--I just noticed NRC's recent measurements for the NHT C3 Carbon Fiber. https://www.dougschneider.com/index...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153 Maybe Amir should measure those and forget about the Super Zero.

 

[jhaider]

Whoa--I just noticed NRC's recent measurements for the NHT C3 Carbon Fiber. https://www.dougschneider.com/index...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153 Maybe Amir should measure those and forget about the Super Zero.

The gloss black ones measure pretty well too.

 

[Billy Budapest]

I guess we're looking at different graphs. I've never seen a flatter response in a Sound and Vision review. And
that's with the grills on. There's no smiley face--just a little bump near 100 Hz to give them some body in the absence of any real bass extension. I've heard that exact system (monitor plus sub) and was very impressed. My only real complaint was a slightly hot treble. I suspect a measurement with less smoothing would show more irregularity at 1 kHz, but that's often a problem area and difficult to deal with using a crossover simple enough to keep the price so low. I would very much like to see Amir measure them. This is a smiley face: https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/jbl_l890/ Almost the entire region from around 400 Hz to 4 kHz is ramped down several dB, whereas the NHT is virtually flat from 200 Hz to almost 10,000 Hz. Whoa--I just noticed NRC's recent measurements for the NHT C3 Carbon Fiber. https://www.dougschneider.com/index...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153 Maybe Amir should measure those and forget about the Super Zero.

The Absolute Zero definitely has a smiley face EQ—ramped up in the bass and the treble. See the top line on the graph below. Sounds like crap, too. I’m glad the C3 measures better. Amir should measure that and the SuperZero—but only the original or 2.1 version. The 2.0 version had some issues.

 

[Shike]

The Absolute Zero definitely has a smiley face EQ—ramped up in the bass and the treble. See the top line on the graph below. Sounds like crap, too. I’m glad the C3 measures better. Amir should measure that and the SuperZero—but only the original or 2.1 version. The 2.0 version had some issues.

I have to agree with Alan, I'm really not seeing it. There's a mild rise in treble and a small bump at 100hz, but I would not equate that anywhere near a smile EQ which tends to be much more extreme over more of the passband.

The Zero and the Classic 3 where the saving grace of the Classic series, the Classic 2 was the stepchild.

 

[MZKM]

The gloss black ones measure pretty well too.

The carbon fiber model is just an aesthetic difference, so it should measure identically.

It’s been one of my recommended models for music setups for a while (they aren’t sensitive enough for a home theater setup).

The center is an 3-way WTMW design, would love to see that measured.

 

[spacebar]

And he has to come back tomorrow for planing tomatoes

Always enjoy the stories, but how do you planing tomatoes? Never heard of it I believe it’s some magic tomatoes.
Thanks for the review

 

[Hugo9000]

Always enjoy the stories, but how do you planing tomatoes? Never heard of it I believe it’s some magic tomatoes.
Thanks for the review

Planing tomatoes with a mandoline, how else?

 

[spacebar]

That is magic

 

[Dennis Murphy]

The Absolute Zero definitely has a smiley face EQ—ramped up in the bass and the treble. See the top line on the graph below. Sounds like crap, too. I’m glad the C3 measures better. Amir should measure that and the SuperZero—but only the original or 2.1 version. The 2.0 version had some issues.

View attachment 63266

That's a pretty broad smile.

 

[jonfitch]

I think it's the three-ways like the Classic Three and C3 which are competent designs as they are traditional dome and cone 3-ways like a lot of 70s speakers. The dispersion measurements are really good. Whereas their two ways are 6.5" woofers paired with 1" tweeters using extremely high x-over points (3K) which will invariably have horizontal directivity problems.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/nht_classic_three/

 

[bigx5murf]

I've owned the SB1 and the Super One, subjectively I felt they both sounded v-shaped. I also made the mistake of adding Ken Kantor on FB, and he was very unpleasant to my friends on social media. Turned me off big time, and I sold off my entire NHT collection (SW10 mk2, Super one, SB1, Model 1.3, MA1 sw amp).

 

[Trouble Maker]

Planing tomatoes with a mandoline, how else?

I don't know how this is supposed to work with a tomato, but if you say so I'll try it.

 

[MDINNO]

Is there any speaker that is ever recommended here?? The NHT's are fantastic speakers. So are the Ascend Acoustics which were also shot down here. I can tell you for a fact the SuperZero 2.1 and the SuperOne 2.1 are some of the greatest speakers ever made. The SB, Classic, and C- Series just improved and/or continued on their sound. When I saw that Ascend Acoustic speakers were shot down also here I knew the credibility of this site is gone. Ascend's are one of the best speakers on the market period. I already see SB2 on Ebay. An absolute steal for someone looking for excellent speakers.

 

[Shike]

Is there any speaker that is ever recommended here??

Yes, and you would know that if you actually read the reviews regularly.

The NHT's are fantastic speakers.

Not this particular model. I own eight SZ XU + parts for my ambiophonics system (half are spares) and a pair of C3s. I also owned the Classic 2 which was okay but certainly not fantastic. As for the SZ XU model the crossover is pretty laughable as is the linearity. The good news is that I used them nearfield and can EQ them pretty easily so hurrah for that. The 2.1 is a solid improvement but it's still just an okay mini monitor (hard to find those that match footprint competitively).

So are the Ascend Acoustics which were also shot down here.

The CBM-170SE is okay when it's on sale, the 340 is okay if you need output. Beyond that the value starts dropping as you go up the product line. They have compromises, and the woofers when pushed can start having issues including propensity to crack which is why a subwoofer is basically mandatory on them.

I wouldn't bother with anything outside of the CBM line without specific understanding of requirements assuming you want to deal with Ascend.

I can tell you for a fact the SuperZero 2.1 and the SuperOne 2.1 are some of the greatest speakers ever made.

Define "greatest" in an objective manner.

The SB

Is terrible, at least on this specific model as demonstrated.

Classic, and C- Series just improved and/or continued on their sound.

On their 5" 2-way and 3-way bookshelves they offer good performance at reasonable listening levels when accompanied by a subwoofer. Their towers should also be pretty good depending.

When I saw that Ascend Acoustic speakers were shot down also here I knew the credibility of this site is gone.

Neat, then why post here at all? I think some of the flaws were overstated, but the CBM line does have some compromises and the fact is the Sierra 2 didn't measure nearly as well as it should have. Once you get into ~1K NHT generally trounces them in quality within their SPL limits.

Ascend's are one of the best speakers on the market period.

They're okay. They also have a lot of competition now that they didn't have a decade ago. The handwaving by Dave after the Sierra 2 review/measurements came out not to mention my experience with him in the past has put him on my no buy list. Not that it matters, I ended up being quite content with my main rig after replacing my Ascends myself.