• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Nubert NuVero 60 Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 41 19.4%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 147 69.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 22 10.4%

  • Total voters
    211
Soooo yeah I went and did it. Okay, not actually already buying those speakers but I gave a listen to all my KEF candidates.


A big bummer for me was that their listening room didn't have meaningful acoustic treatment. They didn't even care about bass modes and told me that they wanted to aim for a regular, basic living room experience most people have. I kind of agree, but I'd rather think that people who buy speakers for +10k would at least use bass correction and a few more absorbers/diffusers. It wasn't bad but these speakers were heavily throttled by the room I could tell.

We started off with listening to the Blades 2 Meta. As for the sound I can't find a better word for it than "weird". It was as if there was no on axis sound at all, it was like there was no speaker at all. It was just free floating music in the room. Did I like it? I am not sure, since as mentioned above the room was pretty random and what I heard was not really enough to make me buy 26.000 € speakers without the right to return them. Was this sound good? Oh yes, it was stellar, but I wasn't in awe as you would want to be on this price range.

Then we switched to the Reference 3 Meta. I liked those way more. I can't really explain why - maybe more "direct" sound? They sounded just more fun, had nicer bass (maybe less distortion due to the higher weight: 33 Kg vs 51 Kg?) and their Uni-Q driver was placed on average couch-sitting-ear height. The resolution was absolutely stellar as far as I could tell in that room.

Finally after my request the store owner brought a pair of R7 Meta. Compared to the R-Series these are considered already pretty large but still notably smaller than the Reference 3. I didn't expect such a downgrade when pressing play on the prior listening test songs but yeah, it was a downgrade. It wasn't bad, those are actually really solid speakers having all the KEF qualities, but the bass, sweet spot and resolution couldn't be compared to the Reference series.

If I had to choose right now I'd take the Reference 3. BUT I still have to test the Genelec 8361 for completeness.
Thing is, right after coming home I ran the listening test songs on my NuVero 170. Firstly, the bass is unmatched even by the Blade and Reference and secondly I remembered that the Uni-Q driver had this 99 % absorption thingy for the treble, so I just whipped out some leftover acoustic wool and put it behind all my BMR and Tweeters (there was some already but you could place 1-2 sheets more behind them if you wanted too, dunno why Nubert didn't fill this up. I think it's kind of an improvement in resolution but could be full placebo. Anyway, the longer I sit here and listen (currently as I write this post) I see less and less reason to switch to KEF right now. I'd rather save the money and get 2 nifty subwoofers instead.

But there is a moderate chance that I wake up tomorrow and yell "BLADES". This is what hifi is all about.

I will report back after listening to the Genelecs. And to make it clear: if I had had the money back then and the KEFs and AudioScienceReview would have been available from my start I would have gone straight to the Reference 3.

Edit: One thing that stood out: the owner showed me "Roger Walters - The Ballad of Bill Hubbart" where at the beginning there is a dog barking and a phone call that, when using the right setup and ideal speaker alignment, should simulate "rear sound" which worked extremely good on the KEF. I couldn't get this effect to work on my NuVero 170 yet ...
what i see about the new reference metas, is they improved the tweeter directivity, is wider so now it match better the mid range... my KEF R7 sounded small in the top end, spatial qualitys are affected by that
 
Last edited:
Soooo yeah I went and did it. Okay, not actually already buying those speakers but I gave a listen to all my KEF candidates.


A big bummer for me was that their listening room didn't have meaningful acoustic treatment. They didn't even care about bass modes and told me that they wanted to aim for a regular, basic living room experience most people have. I kind of agree, but I'd rather think that people who buy speakers for +10k would at least use bass correction and a few more absorbers/diffusers. It wasn't bad but these speakers were heavily throttled by the room I could tell.

We started off with listening to the Blades 2 Meta. As for the sound I can't find a better word for it than "weird". It was as if there was no on axis sound at all, it was like there was no speaker at all. It was just free floating music in the room. Did I like it? I am not sure, since as mentioned above the room was pretty random and what I heard was not really enough to make me buy 26.000 € speakers without the right to return them. Was this sound good? Oh yes, it was stellar, but I wasn't in awe as you would want to be on this price range.

Then we switched to the Reference 3 Meta. I liked those way more. I can't really explain why - maybe more "direct" sound? They sounded just more fun, had nicer bass (maybe less distortion due to the higher weight: 33 Kg vs 51 Kg?) and their Uni-Q driver was placed on average couch-sitting-ear height. The resolution was absolutely stellar as far as I could tell in that room.

Finally after my request the store owner brought a pair of R7 Meta. Compared to the R-Series these are considered already pretty large but still notably smaller than the Reference 3. I didn't expect such a downgrade when pressing play on the prior listening test songs but yeah, it was a downgrade. It wasn't bad, those are actually really solid speakers having all the KEF qualities, but the bass, sweet spot and resolution couldn't be compared to the Reference series.

If I had to choose right now I'd take the Reference 3. BUT I still have to test the Genelec 8361 for completeness.
Thing is, right after coming home I ran the listening test songs on my NuVero 170. Firstly, the bass is unmatched even by the Blade and Reference and secondly I remembered that the Uni-Q driver had this 99 % absorption thingy for the treble, so I just whipped out some leftover acoustic wool and put it behind all my BMR and Tweeters (there was some already but you could place 1-2 sheets more behind them if you wanted too, dunno why Nubert didn't fill this up. I think it's kind of an improvement in resolution but could be full placebo. Anyway, the longer I sit here and listen (currently as I write this post) I see less and less reason to switch to KEF right now. I'd rather save the money and get 2 nifty subwoofers instead.

But there is a moderate chance that I wake up tomorrow and yell "BLADES". This is what hifi is all about.

I will report back after listening to the Genelecs. And to make it clear: if I had had the money back then and the KEFs and AudioScienceReview would have been available from my start I would have gone straight to the Reference 3.

Edit: One thing that stood out: the owner showed me "Roger Walters - The Ballad of Bill Hubbart" where at the beginning there is a dog barking and a phone call that, when using the right setup and ideal speaker alignment, should simulate "rear sound" which worked extremely good on the KEF. I couldn't get this effect to work on my NuVero 170 yet ...
How did all the Kef's sound in comparison to your Nubert setup?

I also own some Nubert speakers, they are small A-200s brought 9 years ago at 345 euros each, still sound amazing. Better than some 20 year old PMC TB1s I got out of the loft to use in a new home studio setup. (different place to the A-200s)

I don't change my stuff often as you can tell but I am going to upgrade the PMC's. I was considering the Gelelec 360As but reading this post has made me rethink this. Why don't I stick with a brand I like and save myself thousands of pounds. My set up is not acoustically ideal anyway and the Genelec's are pig ugly to boot. The NuVero 60s or 70s would work fine in my set up using my existing Nord amp and they are pretty looking things.

I might also take a weekend brake to Germany with some of the money I've saved and visit the factory so I can listen to the options.
 
How did all the Kef's sound in comparison to your Nubert setup?

I also own some Nubert speakers, they are small A-200s brought 9 years ago at 345 euros each, still sound amazing. Better than some 20 year old PMC TB1s I got out of the loft to use in a new home studio setup. (different place to the A-200s)

I don't change my stuff often as you can tell but I am going to upgrade the PMC's. I was considering the Gelelec 360As but reading this post has made me rethink this. Why don't I stick with a brand I like and save myself thousands of pounds. My set up is not acoustically ideal anyway and the Genelec's are pig ugly to boot. The NuVero 60s or 70s would work fine in my set up using my existing Nord amp and they are pretty looking things.

I might also take a weekend brake to Germany with some of the money I've saved and visit the factory so I can listen to the options.

The Nubert Nuvero - all of them - have a moderate raise between 2 and 7 Khz. This may sound nice first, but can get bothersome the longer you listen.
Also the wide dispersion is unrivalled and sounds really nice. It's something I miss a little compared to the super neutral and controlled KEF Reference 3 Meta.

My choice was between the Genelecs and KEFs, but I went for the KEFs for a simple reason: they do all of that what the Genelecs do, but passive. And they are far prettier. It was a close battel though, if I hadn't had extreme luck with the price of my Kef Reference 3 Meta, the decision would probably be still unmade today.

For a while I also had the NuPro X3000 which were just phenomenal. I adored them, but they had this small beep-bug that annoyed the hell out of me. The newer generations don't seem to have that issue. But now I settled for Kali IN-5 in my office. I am curious how the NuZeo sound though, but they are hella expensive and I don't see the merit from the looks of them. As usual, there is no data published really. And they don't have bluetooth, that's a no go for an active speaker of 3k+ per pair.

I wish Nubert all the best, but I am just not their target group anymore. Coaxials have hooked me for forever, probably.

As for your line of thought, yeah, keep the A-Series speakers. I honestly think the first two generations of active speakers from Nubert were heavily underpriced. I still have the AS250 Soundbar which isn't avaiable anymore, and it looks and sounds better than their current 900 € model. Note that the AS250 was 550 €. But if you really want to upgrade, I think any Nubert speaker is good. I can only emphasize this: Nubert speakers ARE good speakers, they have just some off-industry approaches in some parts.

Maybe take a REW measurement of the speakers to see what you're working with. Maybe even publish it here, would be interesting!
 
The Nubert Nuvero - all of them - have a moderate raise between 2 and 7 Khz. This may sound nice first, but can get bothersome the longer you listen.
Also the wide dispersion is unrivalled and sounds really nice. It's something I miss a little compared to the super neutral and controlled KEF Reference 3 Meta.

My choice was between the Genelecs and KEFs, but I went for the KEFs for a simple reason: they do all of that what the Genelecs do, but passive. And they are far prettier. It was a close battel though, if I hadn't had extreme luck with the price of my Kef Reference 3 Meta, the decision would probably be still unmade today.

For a while I also had the NuPro X3000 which were just phenomenal. I adored them, but they had this small beep-bug that annoyed the hell out of me. The newer generations don't seem to have that issue. But now I settled for Kali IN-5 in my office. I am curious how the NuZeo sound though, but they are hella expensive and I don't see the merit from the looks of them. As usual, there is no data published really. And they don't have bluetooth, that's a no go for an active speaker of 3k+ per pair.

I wish Nubert all the best, but I am just not their target group anymore. Coaxials have hooked me for forever, probably.

As for your line of thought, yeah, keep the A-Series speakers. I honestly think the first two generations of active speakers from Nubert were heavily underpriced. I still have the AS250 Soundbar which isn't avaiable anymore, and it looks and sounds better than their current 900 € model. Note that the AS250 was 550 €. But if you really want to upgrade, I think any Nubert speaker is good. I can only emphasize this: Nubert speakers ARE good speakers, they have just some off-industry approaches in some parts.

Maybe take a REW measurement of the speakers to see what you're working with. Maybe even publish it here, would be interesting!

Entirely in agreement. I don't live in Germany anymore, but visit regulalrly, and have had the opportunity to listen to Nubert product plenty - their price/performance used to be amazing, but my friends there also told me that was changing as they try to be more "profitably premium".

And like you, I now reside in the coaxial territory. :) The sweet spot is narrower, but how many people visiting our place have ever complained about that when listening to music? :)

Also a bit of melancholy and history :-D ...when I still lived in Germany in he early 90s, and before Nubert existed, a company called Ceeroy had also an off-industry approach. Great price/performance at good prices, small dealer network, minimal advertising in audio mags (but ranked high in Stereoplay or one of those). In any case, fresh out of university as a young engineer, with my first paycheck I was seduced when I listened to them playing Kevin Mahogany's "Double Rainbow" (I seem to recall Enja was an audiophile German audio label). I still own them (I'll have to look it up, but think they are the 8090s), have never had the heart to sell them and they'd be pretty worthless now. There were people that upgraded them further, too, because the cabiets were pretty and super solid. And they still sound remarkably good to this day, when I get a nostalgic moment and put my old system together again. I seem to recall they were acquired by HECO.
 
Last edited:
I know this is slightly off topic but if we're talking Melacholy and History, I brought the LP 12 in the picture when I was 18, I saved up for a year to get it. I'm now 63. The naim aro tonearm is 30 years old. As I said in the previous post I don't change equipment often. This is a brand new set up at home where I have combined a small home studio with my turntable. The waxwing Phono has been a godsend in acheiving this. I cannot tell you how much of a pleasure it has been playing all my albums again, I've never sold one of them. :)

I am in no rush for new speakers, the PMC's work fine. Whatever I do get they have to go on the wall 3 meters from the seating position so my options are limited. If I went for the Nuberts it would have to be the 70s not the 60s reviewed as they have rear portholes. The Genelec S360"s are perfect as the sweet spot is around 3 meters, but they are a lot of money and Ugly.
 

Attachments

  • tempImagelRlDMs.png
    tempImagelRlDMs.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 56
Currently having the nuBoxx B-40 entry-level speakers by nubert (which are really decent), these nuVero 60 look interesting to me.
I am intrigued by the 3-way design, yet they are still compact, this appeals to me. Once again I cannot find any really bad reviews about them, most are raving about these speakers and some go so far as to say there is nothing better in the range <€3000. Almost every review mentions the great imaging/wide stage of these speakers, although one mentioned these speakers don't do well in a small room, as the wide imaging would cause more undesired reflections from walls etc. Another possible negative (?), someone mentioned there is a slight perceivable "dynamic hole" in the range between woofer and midrange, but I could imagine if this is the case that could be EQed. Someone even said he liked these better than the larger nuVero 140.

That being said, yes I think nubert speakers are great and I am on the fence wanting to upgrade, but it is correct that it seems nubert is also starting to promote lots of nonsense, like soundbars and bluetooth "party speakers"...
 
As a casual ASR reader I've just stumbled upon this review tonight, and wanted to leave my own (subjective) impressions as an owner of the NuVero 140s as my main speakers:

I bought my 140s in 2020 after having A/B'ed the NuVero line on site at Nubert's HQ in Schwäbisch Gmünd for several hours together with a friend.

The 170s arguably played in a league of their own but were too big (and pricy) for my needs at the time.
I ranked the 140s second place in terms of soundstage, transparency, and musicality, followed by the 60s. Curiously, I was unimpressed by the 110s (smallest floorstanders) and would have preferred the 60s over the 110s. To my ears, the 110s sounded too 'forced', lacking the sovereign ease of the 140s and 170s (I guess size does matter there). In contrast, the 60s were much more balanced and 'honest' sounding. A bookshelf that wasn't trying to punch above its league, whereas the 110s 'were trying too hard' to sound like big floorstanders while they couldn't -- if that metaphor makes sense. Yet, the step up from the 60s to the 140s and 170s was clearly noticeable. I had a friend with me who A/B'ed me through the speakers multiple times on different genres/source material while I was wearing a blindfold, and it was easy to tell the three speakers apart (60, 140, 170). Arguably, not 'strictly' scientific gold standard, but as close as we could get at Nubert's listening studio back then.

To finish my listening experience with yet another subjective metaphor: It wasn't so much that the steps up from 60 to 140 and 170 'added' something to the musical reproduction. My impression was more that with each step up, there was 'less that subtracted' from the natural/full sonic experience. More of a 'thin veil' removed from the sound moving up the NuVero range, so that details, soundstage could develop more unconstrained, sovereign (for the lack of a better word). I remember well how surprised I was about this, as the 170s are such massive loudspeakers (optically), and I wouldn't have expected them to necessarily play 'finer', 'lighter', and 'disappear' so well behind the soundstage in the blind tests... So the 170s are clearly top of the line, but size and price were prohibitive.

Due to fortunate circumstances at the time, I was able to get my 140s (white ones) delivered for EUR 3,800.- a pair (current retail is 4,800.-). At this price point, I just couldn't find a better value deal, and I'm happy with my 140s since then.

They're driven by a Benchmark AHB2 which is fed by an RME ADI-2. A German-American love medley, if you will.
I also have a second (parallel) signal path from the ADI-2 via a Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp. I am aware that there's strong sentiments among some ASR members when it comes to combining a tube preamp with an exquisite piece of engineering like the AHB2, and I don't want to open this can of worms again. I'm merely saying that there's certain source material (acoustic, vocal, jazz, the golden Abby Road Studios era recordings) for which I find the sonic signature of the added tube stage most pleasant. I can hot-A/B switch between the all-SS and added tube signal path, and it's quite fun to experience the subtle differences between the two...

Bottom line: I am glad I've found this review, and that Amir and the ASR community overall seem to find merit in the design and engineering behind the NuVero series of loudspeakers. Next step in my personal journey is more serious room acoustics treatment and measuring/EQing...
Big Thank You to the ASR community for all the hard work and passion that goes into maintaining this endeavour!
 
Okay, this is getting weird.
I started this shipping process since I wanted to know how my Nubert system back then actually measured to make an educated decision about getting coaxials - KEF to be precise.

After this review I went and sold my Nubert system and went onto my "endgame" system, namely KEF Reference 3 Meta as fronts, 2x KC92 Subs and R3 non-meta as surrounds.

While the clarity and sound performance overall is unrivalled, there is that thing that bothers me that I though I will get used to: the wide, comfortable room sound that the Nubert created with their "sail" shaped baffle. The KEF just sound so narrow compared to them. I know that 50° constant directivity isn't really "narrow" but it just pales in comparison to the about 80° the Nuvero have up until about 8 Khz, and I really miss that.

So, what are my options currently?
- From the time of my Nubert System I still have my moderately thick acoustic wall pictures. Should I remove them? My living room setup is arranged in a way that my LEFT Reference 3 speaker is in a corner and to its own right it has the wall with two acoustic wall pictures. The RIGHT Reference 3 speaker has nothing to its left, only an open space, so there are no reflecitons. Would removing the acoustic wall pictures make the room more "life"?
- Maybe it's the ceiling reflections of the mid range I didn't really have before since the NuVero 170 had a heavy combfilter effect vertically. Should I I dampf the ceiling?
- What about the ball behind my listening position? These too have acoustic wall paintings.

Not that with all the wall paintings, I can just remove the acoustic foam, so the room design would stay the same.
 
Okay, this is getting weird.
I started this shipping process since I wanted to know how my Nubert system back then actually measured to make an educated decision about getting coaxials - KEF to be precise.

After this review I went and sold my Nubert system and went onto my "endgame" system, namely KEF Reference 3 Meta as fronts, 2x KC92 Subs and R3 non-meta as surrounds.

While the clarity and sound performance overall is unrivalled, there is that thing that bothers me that I though I will get used to: the wide, comfortable room sound that the Nubert created with their "sail" shaped baffle. The KEF just sound so narrow compared to them. I know that 50° constant directivity isn't really "narrow" but it just pales in comparison to the about 80° the Nuvero have up until about 8 Khz, and I really miss that.

So, what are my options currently?
- From the time of my Nubert System I still have my moderately thick acoustic wall pictures. Should I remove them? My living room setup is arranged in a way that my LEFT Reference 3 speaker is in a corner and to its own right it has the wall with two acoustic wall pictures. The RIGHT Reference 3 speaker has nothing to its left, only an open space, so there are no reflecitons. Would removing the acoustic wall pictures make the room more "life"?
- Maybe it's the ceiling reflections of the mid range I didn't really have before since the NuVero 170 had a heavy combfilter effect vertically. Should I I dampf the ceiling?
- What about the ball behind my listening position? These too have acoustic wall paintings.

Not that with all the wall paintings, I can just remove the acoustic foam, so the room design would stay the same.
Turns out you can adjust the toe-in of the coaxials to an extreme degree—placing them nearly parallel and aiming 'beside' the listening position—and still achieve a coherent, but much more spacious and comfortable sound. Problem solved!
 
Back
Top Bottom