NHT Super Zero 2.1 Review (bookshelf speaker)

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I see this small speaker, as almost just a bit of a step up for a minimus 7 in actual use with MOST owners. Not quite as small obviously, but for the same intended purposes mostly. Small, decent enough sound, that with a sub it seems a lot better, but can be used on a desk, in the kitchen, or any small space where "real" speakers are simply too large.

sure, maybe so...but there are lots of speakers that accomplish that for less money. Many of them wouldn't absolutely require a sub either.

But as far as Amir's subjective reviews go, one of the fundamental premises of this place is that subjective assessments need to be taken with an enormous grain of salt. Personally, I barely even read the subjective part of these reviews. No offense to Amir, but they just don't mean a whole lot to me.

 

[sarumbear]

Personally, I barely even read the subjective part of these reviews. No offense to Amir, but they just don't mean a whole lot to me.

Same here. They are subjective. Check the dictionary. They are his personal views. They are not objective i.e. scientific.

The man works for free. The entire audio community benefits from his tests, which are are not argued nor disputed. However, a few are not happy with how he feels about a product. So what? Ignore it! If you can't, go somewhere else...

 

[watchnerd]

sure, maybe so...but there are lots of speakers that accomplish that for less money. Many of them wouldn't absolutely require a sub either.

But as far as Amir's subjective reviews go, one of the fundamental premises of this place is that subjective assessments need to be taken with an enormous grain of salt. Personally, I barely even read the subjective part of these reviews. No offense to Amir, but they just don't mean a whole lot to me.

Ditto. I mostly skim or skip the subjective assessment.

The music chosen is also often stuff I don't usually listen to, so I don't have a common reference point to what is being described, anyway. Which is an unavoidable issue with all music-using subjective reviews; if one doesn't know the recording being described, it's hard to translate.

 

[st379]

Preference Rating
SCORE: 3.4
SCORE w/ sub: 6.7

Hi,
You forgot to add the JBL 306p to your google docs.
Thank you for making the list.

 

[richard12511]

Sorry, that's just wrong. A typical stereo amplifier will perform quite differently with two channels driven as opposed to one. It is absolutely essential to test single channel and both channels with a stereo amplifier. The measurable and often audible differences, in no way make the amplifier "broken".

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were describing comparing two amplifiers via a level matched listening. Rereading your original post makes more sense now. I agree that amplifiers will perform differently with 1 channel driven vs 2 channels driven.

Still not sure those differences would be audible, but I suppose it depends on the amp. If I wanted to test my Nord Hypex amp, what would be an appropriate way to do that? It can drive anywhere from 1 to 3 channels.

*Edit: @restorer-john had to manually adjust the quote to get it to work

 

[BYRTT]

Thanks another great acoustic review @amirm, sorry hear all the noice for subjective listening tests keep coming in and probably mostly based on when readers see your pro charts they know better how it sounded or should sound than you did being there happy Xmas and hope Santa drop off some KH 310A onto your lab desk, about NHT Super Zero 2.1 should time allow have EQed the heck out of objective spindata using whoopey 13 times PEQ to set into roon player (copy numbers in below txt format) maybe it doesn't help anything EQ for farfield or not but then you can tell readers you did listening test twice so should count for same as stereo ..

PEQ: Frq: Amp: Q:
01: 187 -2.1 1.49
02: 479 +0.4 1.35
03: 885 -1.7 2.95
04: 1170 +1.1 8.30
05: 1354 -0.8 7.39
06: 1585 +1.8 6.91
07: 1935 +3.4 7.85
08: 2270 +3.1 9.07
09: 2509 -0.8 16.3
10: 2758 +2.6 7.99
11: 3282 +0.6 7.11
12: 3730 -0.9 10.5
13: 4761 -2.0 2.31

 

[whazzup]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were describing comparing two amplifiers via a level matched listening. Rereading your original post makes more sense now. I agree that an amplifier will perform differently with one channel driven vs 2 channels driven.

Hey there, you might have quoted the wrong person. I suppose you are referring to a comment from @restorer-john ?

 

[MZKM]

Hi,
You forgot to add the JBL 306p to your google docs.
Thank you for making the list.

Will do.

 

[richard12511]

Hey there, you might have quoted the wrong person. I suppose you are referring to a comment from @restorer-john ?

This is the third time this has happened to me in the past 2 days. What is going on? The quote remains correct, but the name and member id are switched.

Guess I need to start checking if the "Reply" button added the appropriate tag

 

[Dj7675]

Thank you for another interesting review @amirm . I don’t understand all of the angst regarding this speaker.
-It is a current offering from the manufacturer, so it should be judged against what we now know about speakers and against current offerings.
-On axis isn’t flat or even
-Directivity is poor
-Other speakers in the price category have measured and sounded better (Some even active)
-Bass is poor
Measurements showed overall poor performance. Subjective Listening tests too showed it didn’t sound good.
Over the years this has seems to be an often suggested model at places such as AVSForum. It was a very good choice to review... now we know. Thanks for purchasing, testing, reviewing, listening to it, and writing up the review.

 

[whazzup]

This is the third time this has happened to me in the past 2 days. What is going on? The quote remains correct, but the name and member id are switched.

Guess I need to start checking if the "Reply" button added the appropriate tag

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...

 

[Shike]

I don’t understand all of the angst regarding this speaker.

Then you aren't reading what people are saying.

-It is a current offering from the manufacturer, so it should be judged against what we now know about speakers and against current offerings.
-On axis isn’t flat or even
-Directivity is poor
-Other speakers in the price category have measured and sounded better (Some even active)

No one is arguing any of these.

-Bass is poor

This is the problem, the SZ specifically notes subwoofer usage multiple times and advertises early roll-off. It's built for sat/sub usage and ultimately ignores market segment usage.

Over the years this has seems to be an often suggested model at places such as AVSForum.

Anyone that recommended the SZ honestly would have stated it needs a subwoofer.

Find me a speaker that's just as compact in the same price category that does better and is easily usable with an AVR. The target market for this is those considering HTiB (and today) soundbars with strict size restrictions for whatever reasons. This is often the audience it get recommended to.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

So what if it needs or is intended to be used with a sub?? What does it do otherwise that recommends it over anything else? If all those other qualities are lacking, who cares about how it sounds with a sub? If I can get a speaker that sounds better with or without a sub for less, what is the advantage of this speaker?

 

[Shike]

So what if it needs or is intended to be used with a sub?? What does it do otherwise that recommends it over anything else? If all those other qualities are lacking, who cares about how it sounds with a sub? If I can get a speaker that sounds better with or without a sub for less, what is the advantage of this speaker?

Well, if you actually read the post I made you'd have realized it's footprint.

This is aimed at people that can't/won't go much larger than Bose cubes. If you can go larger you should. 100% get something else in this case.

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

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I’m sorry, are these not bookshelf sized speakers?

 

[Dj7675]

Then you aren't reading what people are saying.



No one is arguing any of these.



This is the problem, the SZ specifically notes subwoofer usage multiple times and advertises early roll-off. It's built for sat/sub usage and ultimately ignores market segment usage.



Anyone that recommended the SZ honestly would have stated it needs a subwoofer.

Find me a speaker that's just as compact in the same price category that does better and is easily usable with an AVR. The target market for this is those considering HTiB (and today) soundbars with strict size restrictions for whatever reasons. This is often the audience it get recommended to.

I seem to recall this often being recommended for surround duty and not just as mains with sub. From the measurements, it does not look like a good choice even for that usage.
Amir has reviewed many smaller speakers. Many of these have a similar frequency response. Not sure if you have or haven’t read the Revel M55XC review or not.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m55xc-outdoor-speaker-review.14881/
He seems to be able to judge just fine if a speaker is good or not, even if it has bass deficiencies. Even within the range of what it does this particular speaker just isn’t very good and should be updated to make it a competitive offering.
The review (both objectively and subjectively) show it to not be competitive offering. A speaker can be good or bad within its designed frequency range. This particular one, even considering its limited frequency range just isn’t very good..

 

[SMc]

I’m sorry, are these not bookshelf sized speakers?

9" tall x 5" wide x 5.5" deep.

More here:

https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/nht-super-stereo

...an ultra-compact, inexpensive 2-way, acoustic suspension design that concentrates on the midrange and highs, and leaves the low bass to a dedicated subwoofer... a budget and space friendly alternative to the infamous “cube” type systems.

 

[Dj7675]

Well, if you actually read the post I made you'd have realized it's footprint.

This is aimed at people that can't/won't go much larger than Bose cubes. If you can go larger you should. 100% get something else in this case.

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

It isn’t just the bass... it is everything else. It will be interesting when the M8 is measured. It may get a good review even... if it does it would be because it will have a flat/even frequency response, wide/even directivity, etc... things this speaker lacks.

 

[Shike]

It isn’t just the bass... it is everything else. It will be interesting when the M8 is measured. It may get a good review even... if it does it would be because it will have a flat/even frequency response, wide/even directivity, etc... things this speaker lacks.

Agreed that there are valid gripes, but the bass isn't one of them. It's misunderstanding target demo and using bass as a fault.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

9" tall x 5" wide x 5.5" deep.

I guess if you have a super-specific size constraint and would rather not save some money and buy a better speaker that's an inch or two bigger then so be it...