NHT Super Zero 2.1 Review (bookshelf speaker)

[Shike]

How did you come about on that information?

I think we'd both agree that Revel is fairly honest regarding their specifications, and based on design I think it's safe to say that their -3dB at 110Hz is likely going to be pretty accurate. I doubt they would perform better than that at least.

The reason I'm using the M8 as an example is it mirrors the SuperZero use exactly. It's sold without a subwoofer but anyone familiar with audio would understand the usage is actually as a satellite. This is why I raise an eyebrow at the subwoofer not required claim in relation to this model. Revel has done the exact same thing.

As such I think the fact that there are speakers are designed specifically to be used with a sub and not without, even if sold separately, holds water. Revel in their documentation recommends a subwoofer, but never says it's required in the same way. It's going to be missing bass just the same.

 

[MrPeabody]

"Imaging" has become a huge buzzwords in audiophile circles. It has been elevated to heights that it doesn't belong to. Go to a live concert and tell me where the imaging is. All you hear is a diffused field. No way should imaging have a large space in our vocabulary.

Do I loose sleep then that I did not test for "imaging" in the way you imagine, no. I have confidence that extremely well measuring and sounding speakers in mono also do extremely well in stereo. This is what I quoted from Dr. Toole and Olive research.

And what exactly do you want me to do anyway when it comes to imaging? How the heck would I describe and compare to two sets of speakers in this regard? How would I answer if anyone challenged to my assessment? Did you just become a believer that my subjective listening tests are the bible all of a sudden?

So no, there is nothing more I need to do in my daily tests of speakers. You all are welcome to buy pairs of these speakers, do your imaging test, post and defend them. You don't need me for that. And heaven knows I already have enough aggravation and expense to do these reviews already. Don't need any more Monday morning quarterbacks saying, "yeh but, what angle did you set them up as? how close to the back and front wall? What treatments you have? Why not a diffuser here, and absorber there? Where did you sit? What was behind you? Why did you pick that chair to sit on? What was your ear height? And the color of your socks? Surely that matters to imaging."

Now, if my current speaker evaluations were a failure, maybe we would look for more ways to do things. But that is not the case. Science and research has led us correctly to identify many excellent speakers, and rule out some not so excellent ones. And we march on.

Audiophiles should all agree to the rule that words used to name sound qualities should be limited to words that are sufficiently well defined such that if two different audiophiles are independently asked to describe how the named quality may be measured, the answers would be essentially similar. Ha. That'll be the day.

 

[Tim Link]

I had a pair of the original Super Zeros back in the 1990s. Somebody at Stereophile wrote a an article about how to use these with a line level filter and a subwoofer and put them on a pair of cinderblocks for a decent sounding low cost system. I didn't have a subwoofer so I used my old Polk SDA-2 speakers for bass. To drive the SDA-2s I ended up using an old car stereo, which was powered by a trolling motor battery. This inadvertently created paranormal activity in the home. I was renting a room in this house. The owner worked nights so I was home alone, and would hear footsteps in the house. I told the owner and he said he would also hear footsteps while trying to sleep during the day. After about a week of this poltergeist he discovered that it was that battery running out of juice, causing the amp to thump the speakers as it turned on and off. That was fun!

 

[Tim Link]

Audiophiles should all agree to the rule that words used to name sound qualities should be limited to words that are sufficiently well defined such that if two different audiophiles are independently asked to describe how the named quality may be measured, the answers would be essentially similar. Ha. That'll be the day.

Has anybody done double blind tests for imaging?

 

[uwotm8]

I asked for budget speakers to test and this was recommended. I tested it and reported such

Oh come on. It's an obvious satellite speaker and testing it as a normal one ends just at the moment you realize it is not.
Ofc it may sound crappy even with sub added.

Anyway, there's a more important thing. Frequency response/pref rating wisely, this little piece of [technology] is twice as good as Tannoy coaxials and some other creepy measuring speakers which actually sound accepable or even pleasant.

Objectivists can apologize below

 

[Colonel7]

Good grief. The Klipsch R41s were headless for good reason too with similar limitations (and size). And around the holidays you can get them at Costco for $90-110 per pair. Theres a whole assortment of similar makes and models a # of which have better spins, and some worse. Thers nothing "to get" about these, and nothing to make exceptions for

 

[MZKM]

What is the alternative, superior passive speaker in the $150 to $200 a pair price range that is similarly small, and is either sealed or front ported? Since that is the context in which the Superzero has to compete.

Only one other option measured thus far:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-plus-gxl-3-review-speaker.18203/post-592931

 

[richard12511]

Wait....

Now the quote tag says 'restorer john', but the comments 'Not quite sure what you would...', are mine....

Previously both the quote 'tag' and comments are mine...

Weird, the forum is messing up for some reason.

 

[whazzup]

It's sold without a subwoofer but anyone familiar with audio would understand the usage is actually as a satellite. This is why I raise an eyebrow at the subwoofer not required claim in relation to this model. Revel has done the exact same thing.

Because many who buy speakers are not 'familiar with audio'. Because specifying that a sub is mandatory will create undue stress to the consumer and make them hesitate (that's heavy! Do I really need that? Maybe I should think about it...), when marketers and their companies are trying their hardest to reduce friction in the purchasing process and make the consumer think less.

 

[richard12511]

This is like reviewing the Revel M8 without a subwoofer and yelling it sucks because it's missing bass.

Assuming the Revel has similar bass problems, it will likely also receive a poor panther score.

 

[amirm]

Assuming the Revel has similar bass problems, it will likely also receive a poor panther score.

No. This speaker has many flaws. Bass was just one.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Sorry, not sure if I understand what you're saying.

Regarding the sub, no doubt many speakers are designed to work with one. But the simple reality is Amir (or his rig) is not set up for testing with sub in any consistent fashion. Unless he or someone else has a viable alternative, it's going to stay that way.

And it's just funny how time and again people don't see this very real limitation and keep thinking they're entitled to this or that.

You completely misunderstand my point.

 

[beagleman]

I am trying to show you the fact that there are no active filter/crossover devices on the market that may help these speakers in a Hi-Fi, stereo listening set-up. You will not use a 5+ channel AVR to listen to stereo. Other than toys, AVRs and not-suitable-for-Hi-Fi devices like Behringer, the SHD is the only device you gave as an example.

But, with all due respect, many use AVRs for stereo listening, and enjoy them.

I have actually heard these speakers (the last version, not the current version) on an integrated amp, and they were not top end sound, nor bad in any way other than the limited bass.

With a sub, they were quite enjoyable and did not take up much room at all.

They work great for "What they are", a low cost small mini speaker (almost bookshelf size I guess) and have smooth, clear clean sound. Yes there is better, but for their size they do sound fairly good. Albeit no real bass.

The AVR comment is a red herring.
I see them as just a good/average very small speaker. Not great, but for sure not bad.

 

[sweetchaos]

I've put together a list of passive bookshelf speakers under US$300/pair.
There are 52 passive bookshelf speakers with a woofer size of less than 4.5" (which is what this unit has).

Please don't imply that these are the only *small* sized speakers on the market. There are plenty of options.

 

[beagleman]

I've put together a list of passive bookshelf speakers under US$300/pair.
There are 52 passive bookshelf speakers with a woofer size of less than 4.5" (which is what this unit has).

Please don't imply that these are the only *small* sized speakers on the market. There are plenty of options.

Those newish Polk models are quite decent. The S10 and S15

 

[BYRTT]

.....The Revel he specifically limited the bass content in subjective testing for knowing it was bass limited. He did not provide the same consideration for here and made the bass a point of contention. As such I find the critique of the subjective section in the context of his other reviews valid.....

Please continue your concern and discussions but cant stop present them side by side in they totally night and day on charts plus many many users are used to ported systems and then dont mind 4th order roll offs verse 2nd order roll offs and thats probably what Amir is used to so he did the high pass trick and so what does that really make him deaf if M55XC shined for him yes we can disagree but we wasnt there and also he can afford be used to test or own the better stuff so probably combined other skills should have a good chance have some better reference point to tell a unformal feel of product, as time goes for listening tests think even if he dropped that Panther figure as score for subjective part there would be noice anyway because that Klippel revelator sets numbers via curves or preference list or Panther figure and some of them is stupid bad compared to others or to what some thought was reference as seen over in Magnespan LRS thread where some mean Klippel cant settle acoustic pattern of their LRS panel..

Same ratio Amir's data side by side for NHT Super Zero 2.1 verse Revel M55XC..

Flat as a pancake listening window curve view ..

 

[pma]

Neither NHT nor Revel could be used for serious listening. One cannot cut everything below 110Hz from music. If we admit such speakers are usable, we can start discussing transistor radios instead.

 

[beagleman]

Neither NHT nor Revel could be used for serious listening. One cannot cut everything below 110Hz from music. If we admit such speakers are usable, we can start discussing transistor radios instead.

I know you meant that somewhat jokingly, but transistor radios, are limited to more like around the 200-250 at best range.

 

[SmackDaddies]

If you insist on testing a speaker for sound reproduction in a manner that the manufactures does not intend, that is simply disingenuous. From their website:

...the SuperZero 2.1 complements the SS 10 subwoofer perfectly in creating an affordable yet high-end stereo or surround sound system.

 

[raistlin65]

Pioneer SP-BS22-LR
Neither sealed nor front ported, but as long as not wall mounted won't matter. They also aren't quite as small. But if the size were OK these seem like a much better recommendation other than flush mounting to a wall.

Personally, if an extremely small speaker were very important for me, keeping the price similar I might look at the iLoud single woofer micro monitor.

The Pioneers are not comparable. Putting aside the fact that they are rear ported, they are also 3 times as large in volume.