Is NHT Mid Fi?
Arny Krüger
speaker line is "high end".
Whatcha think?
Sandman
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
<x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
> The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
> speaker line is "high end".
>
> Whatcha think?
I don't know. I saw favorable reviews of the Super Zeros and Super Ones
and their top-of-the line model (to my tastes, that one is visually ugly as
sin) in Stereophile years back (none were "Class A", of course) and one
negative review of a mid-priced model last year in Fi. The term "high end"
may mean a number of things to different people. If a favorable review in
a "high-end" publication such as Stereophile can, for argument's sake, mean
a product may be considered "high-end", if recommended, then at least those
three models are "high-end", regardless of "Class" demarcations.
Just out of curiosity, Arnii, where did you first hear or read of the NHT
models you purchased? I haven't followed your entire exchange with Barry
Rothman.
Sandman
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
FWIW, I consider the 2.5, 2.9 and 3.3 models to be high-end.
Then again, I am a fan of NHT. IMO, each of their models provides
stunning value at their respective price points.
The 2.5 is perhaps marginal as a high-end speaker because it's
bass is quite restricted for a floor-standing speaker, but it's a lot
of speaker for the money. I can't imagine there would be any dispute
about the 2.9 and 3.3 models ( the 3.3, AFAIK, has restricted
distribution, and is not available to all NHT dealers).
I rather liked the 3.3's looks, Jim, though it's unusual, to
say the least. Laura, however, didn't. End of 3.3 story ::grin::
What I liked then about it (and still do) is that it doesn't occupy as
much usable real estate as one might think. I've got my big Joseph's
way out into the room about 5 ft. The 3.3's only extend about 3.5 ft.
or so if properly placed against the rear wall and are considerably
more slender. I'd actually gain usable space if I had them.
Ed
Sandman
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<3756c7d2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
I gather Arnii has the 2.5's. Therefore the bigass subs.
> I can't imagine there would be any dispute
> about the 2.9 and 3.3 models ( the 3.3, AFAIK, has restricted
> distribution, and is not available to all NHT dealers).
>
> I rather liked the 3.3's looks, Jim, though it's unusual, to
> say the least.
"Scuse me... while I puke in your eye"... Jimi Hendrix
> Laura, however, didn't. End of 3.3 story ::grin::
> What I liked then about it (and still do) is that it doesn't occupy as
> much usable real estate as one might think. I've got my big Joseph's
> way out into the room about 5 ft. The 3.3's only extend about 3.5 ft.
> or so if properly placed against the rear wall and are considerably
> more slender. I'd actually gain usable space if I had them.
True enough, but you'd still SEE them! I'd rather look at your Joseph's.
:-)~
Sandman
Edward Derson Hou
> > Sandman
>
> FWIW, I consider the 2.5, 2.9 and 3.3 models to be high-end.
> Then again, I am a fan of NHT. IMO, each of their models provides
> stunning value at their respective price points.
I'm not particularly a fan of NHT, but I think the 2.9 and 3.3 are
definitely high end.
>
> The 2.5 is perhaps marginal as a high-end speaker because it's
> bass is quite restricted for a floor-standing speaker, but it's a lot
> of speaker for the money.
Actually, as far as <$1500 speakers go, the 2.5i bass goes decently low-
along with the Vandys, Paradigms, and PSBs. (I don't consider Def Techs
high end ;-))
I consider it the strength of the speaker.
> I can't imagine there would be any dispute
> about the 2.9 and 3.3 models ( the 3.3, AFAIK, has restricted
> distribution, and is not available to all NHT dealers).
>
> I rather liked the 3.3's looks, Jim, though it's unusual, to
> say the least. Laura, however, didn't. End of 3.3 story ::grin::
> What I liked then about it (and still do) is that it doesn't occupy as
> much usable real estate as one might think. I've got my big Joseph's
> way out into the room about 5 ft. The 3.3's only extend about 3.5 ft.
> or so if properly placed against the rear wall and are considerably
> more slender. I'd actually gain usable space if I had them.
>
The 3.3 does require careful setup, but most high-end speakers do.
-Eddie
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
Dana Alan
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
> >Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
> ><x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
> >> The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
> >> speaker line is "high end".
> FWIW, I consider the 2.5, 2.9 and 3.3 models to be high-end.
> Then again, I am a fan of NHT. IMO, each of their models provides
> stunning value at their respective price points.
I would consider the 2.9 and 3.3 speakers to be "high-end" but near
the entry point into "high-end." Of course, this is a personal
judgement call. To someone used to looking at $60 Yamaha speakers from
Sears, a $1400 2.5i would seem to be very high-end. Conversely, to
people who drop $10K on a CD transport, that's peanuts. Plus the
2.5i's really don't compete sonically, IMHO, with what is available
in the $15K range. Then consider that multiple vendors are offering
$60K+ speakers. So it comes down to where one draws the dividing
line.
> The 2.5 is perhaps marginal as a high-end speaker because it's
> bass is quite restricted for a floor-standing speaker, but it's a lot
> of speaker for the money. I can't imagine there would be any dispute
> about the 2.9 and 3.3 models ( the 3.3, AFAIK, has restricted
> distribution, and is not available to all NHT dealers).
>
> I rather liked the 3.3's looks, Jim, though it's unusual, to
> say the least. Laura, however, didn't. End of 3.3 story ::grin::
> What I liked then about it (and still do) is that it doesn't occupy as
> much usable real estate as one might think. I've got my big Joseph's
> way out into the room about 5 ft. The 3.3's only extend about 3.5 ft.
> or so if properly placed against the rear wall and are considerably
> more slender. I'd actually gain usable space if I had them.
Interestingly enough, I've read two reviews on the 2.9/3.3 series
speakers, and both stated that their bass was best when the speaker
was positioned 24"-36" from the back wall. So while I too have been
told that the cabinets were designed for being placed right against
a wall, that is not what others have found in their listening rooms.
This is also consistent with what my local ex-dealer of NHT found
out. He had them very near to his back wall in the store. But
when he dropped NHT (due to lack of sales, not because he didn't
like them), he sold his floor demo 3.3 to a regular customer for
at a good discount. Later he visited the customer's house and couldn't
believe how much better the 3.3s sounded in the customer's room than
they had on the store floor. One of the differences in placement was
that the customer had moved them out a couple of feet from the wall.
Dana
Thomas VanHorn
acoustic suspension bass with an alpha of 3 or less. I cut my hifi teeth on
a pair of AR 3's.
After QUAD's with and without Subs, Fried TL's, and various homwbrew
speakers, I was VERY pleased with the bass of the NHT line and bought a lot
of NHT models from the original 1 throught a pair of second hand 3.3's and
have been totally satisfied.
I must add that their vented stuff is second rate to their seal stuff
but that is MY BIAS Pro Sealed.
Once you get the bass right ( foundation of music) the rest is OK for my
ears.
Trevor Wilson <ra...@hutch.com.au> wrote in message
news:7j6ugb$773$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
>
> Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> > The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
> > speaker line is "high end".
> >
> > Whatcha think?
>
> **Lemme see. NHT's (all of them) are accurate, articulate. They possess
> relatively flat FR curves (taking into account their size, of course).
Their
> engineering is impeccable and build quality is very good.
>
> Of course, they're high end.
>
> There may be superior products, at similar price levels, from other brands
> (for instance, NEAR), but that does not preclude NHT products from being
> accurate transducers.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
> http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
>
>
Gregory L. Willis
the VR4. What made you spend the extra $1,000 on VSR, when you could have
saved $1,000 plus by going with NHT 2.9?
Rich Harkness <hark...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37573192....@news.yec1.on.wave.home.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 17:35:25 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
> >speaker line is "high end".
> >
> >Whatcha think?
> >
> >
>
> Definitely. I can't believe anyone could think otherwise.
> Every time I hear NHT speakers I can't believe the bang for the buck
> they deliver. When I listened to the 2.9s I began to wonder how
> I (or anyone) can justify spending much more money on other
> speakers. Even the 2.5s had this effect on me. Mostly because
> of the NHTs superb balance, transparency and feeling of 'accuracy.'
> Many big buck speakers seemed to do one or several things well,
> but fell down noticeably in other areas. The NHTs just seemed to
> banish most of the problems other speakers struggled with.
>
> While, ultimately, the NHT sound is not for me, I cannot
> believe anyone could impugn the fantastic engineering
> behind these speakers.
>
> Perhaps if NHT designed a zany-priced flagship
> speaker some audiophiles (with misplaced priorities)
> would take them more seriously.
>
> High End with a bullet, I say.
>
> Rich H.
>
> (Arny, are you ever tempted by the 2.9s etc.?)
>
jennifer burton
> > way out into the room about 5 ft. The 3.3's only extend about 3.5 ft.
> > or so if properly placed against the rear wall and are considerably
> > more slender. I'd actually gain usable space if I had them.
>
> :-)~
>
> Sandman
>
>
pushing with your ML gear, Ed. Nice, very nice!
Trevor Wilson
> speaker line is "high end".
>
> Whatcha think?
**Lemme see. NHT's (all of them) are accurate, articulate. They possess
Rich Harkness
wrote:
>The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
>speaker line is "high end".
>
>Whatcha think?
>
>
Definitely. I can't believe anyone could think otherwise.
Arny Krüger
Sandman wrote in message
<01beaded$4b9409c0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>...
>
>Just out of curiosity, Arnii, where did you first hear or read of
the NHT
>models you purchased? I haven't followed your entire exchange with
Barry
>Rothman.
I started checking out NHT's based on personal Recommendations of
several friends in my HiFi club.
Arny Krüger
><x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
>> The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
>> speaker line is "high end".
>>
>> Whatcha think?
>
Ones
>and their top-of-the line model (to my tastes, that one is visually
ugly as
>sin) in Stereophile years back (none were "Class A", of course) and
one
>negative review of a mid-priced model last year in Fi. The term
"high end"
>may mean a number of things to different people. If a favorable
review in
>a "high-end" publication such as Stereophile can, for argument's
sake, mean
>a product may be considered "high-end", if recommended, then at
least those
>three models are "high-end", regardless of "Class" demarcations.
Thanks. I hope Rothman reads this.
Arny Krüger
Edward M. Shain wrote in message
<3756c7d2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 18:16:39 GMT, "Sandman" <sand...@mediaone.net>
>wrote:
>
>Then again, I am a fan of NHT. IMO, each of their models provides
>stunning value at their respective price points.
>
>bass is quite restricted for a floor-standing speaker, but it's a
lot
>of speaker for the money. I can't imagine there would be any dispute
>about the 2.9 and 3.3 models ( the 3.3, AFAIK, has restricted
>distribution, and is not available to all NHT dealers).
>
> I rather liked the 3.3's looks, Jim, though it's unusual, to
>say the least. Laura, however, didn't. End of 3.3 story ::grin::
>What I liked then about it (and still do) is that it doesn't occupy
as
>way out into the room about 5 ft. The 3.3's only extend about 3.5
ft.
>or so if properly placed against the rear wall and are considerably
more slender. I'd actually gain usable space if I had them.
>
Thanks. I hope Rothman reads this.
>
>
>
Arny Krüger
Sandman wrote in message
<01beadf2$0f2311c0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>...
>
>
>I gather Arnii has the 2.5's. Therefore the bigass subs.
Just one. ;-)
Arny Krüger
Edward Derson Hou wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Edward M. Shain wrote:
>> > Sandman
>>
>> Then again, I am a fan of NHT. IMO, each of their models provides
>> stunning value at their respective price points.
>
>
>definitely high end.
>
>
>>
>> bass is quite restricted for a floor-standing speaker, but it's a
lot
>> of speaker for the money.
>
low-
>along with the Vandys, Paradigms, and PSBs. (I don't consider Def
Techs
>high end ;-))
Thanks. ;-)
Arny Krüger
Trevor Wilson wrote in message <7j6ugb$773$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>
>Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com...
>> The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
>> speaker line is "high end".
>>
>> Whatcha think?
>
possess
>relatively flat FR curves (taking into account their size, of
course). Their
>engineering is impeccable and build quality is very good.
>
>Of course, they're high end.
>
>There may be superior products, at similar price levels, from other
brands
>(for instance, NEAR), but that does not preclude NHT products from
being
>accurate transducers.
>
Rich Harkness
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 17:35:25 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
>>speaker line is "high end".
>>
>>Whatcha think?
>>
>>
>
>Definitely. I can't believe anyone could think otherwise.
>Every time I hear NHT speakers I can't believe the bang for the buck
>they deliver. When I listened to the 2.9s I began to wonder how
>I (or anyone) can justify spending much more money on other
>speakers. Even the 2.5s had this effect on me. Mostly because
>of the NHTs superb balance, transparency and feeling of 'accuracy.'
>Many big buck speakers seemed to do one or several things well,
>but fell down noticeably in other areas. The NHTs just seemed to
>banish most of the problems other speakers struggled with.
>
>While, ultimately, the NHT sound is not for me, I cannot
>believe anyone could impugn the fantastic engineering
>behind these speakers.
>
>Perhaps if NHT designed a zany-priced flagship
>speaker some audiophiles (with misplaced priorities)
>would take them more seriously.
>
>High End with a bullet, I say.
>
>Rich H.
>
>(Arny, are you ever tempted by the 2.9s etc.?)
>
Whoops, I read Arny's question too quickly and thought
he was asking "is NHT high end." I think they are, and that's
why I started my first sentence "definitely."
Rich H.
Sandman
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
<2UG53.2299$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
>
> Sandman wrote in message
> <01beaded$4b9409c0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>...
> >
> >Just out of curiosity, Arnii, where did you first hear or read of
> the NHT
> >models you purchased? I haven't followed your entire exchange with
> Barry
> >Rothman.
>
> I started checking out NHT's based on personal Recommendations of
> several friends in my HiFi club.
Did you have the opportunity to audition them prior to purchase?
Sandman
Aragonace
have been involved with audio for 25 years. My home system is worth about ten
grand. I wouldn't take a pair of NHT's for free.
Arny Krüger
Sandman wrote in message
<01beae43$355bc0c0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>...
I did. I found the audition quite unsatisfying, but bought them
anyhow.
The room in which the audition took place, and the intended listening
room had nothing in common. In the shop, the 2.5i's sounded harsh and
boomy. I sort of mentally divided the room out of the equation, and
decided to leap in, anyway.
When I bought the S0's, it was more of the same, plus I had to listen
to the sales guy obsess over using them biwired and with big
monblocks. That's what he said he had at home - S0's and a couple of
killobuck monblocks and maybe $300 of speaker magic wire. I did keep
a straight face, but as experiences in real life (not RAO) go, it was
pretty bizarre.
I bought the S1's basically cash and carry. I went into the same
store, asked for them, paid for them, and that was that.
Diferent sales guy each time, and he was the only visible sales
person in the store.
I've previously discussed how after he set up the audition of the
2.5i's , I was unable to attract the salesman's attention over a
period of about a half hour, as he chewed the fat with one "regular"
after another. I actually stood in the background, and overheard
snips of the conversations.
All these people were talking and talking and obsessing over
equipment, but not taking any action. From those conversations (and
others I've overheard under more favorable conditions), I discerned
that they had visited several stores, in one case a HiFi show, and
had been worrying about their possible purchases for weeks and
months. These people seemed to have money, so I guess that the
fretting and obsession was part of the process for them.
At that time, I finally ran out of time and left. The salesguy ran
out into the parking lot after me, and I took pity on him, and we did
the deal. But I negotiated the price down quite a bit (for me). I was
pissed.
If I spent the kind of time these other customers spent on their
purchases, I'd simply get nothing done and my social life would be a
zero. Maybe that's part of their situation.
Arny Krüger
Rich Harkness wrote in message
<37573192....@news.yec1.on.wave.home.com>...
>On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 17:35:25 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
>>speaker line is "high end".
>>
>>Whatcha think?
>>
>
>Definitely. I can't believe anyone could think otherwise.
Well, we are talking Barry Rothman, here.
>Every time I hear NHT speakers I can't believe the bang for the buck
>they deliver. When I listened to the 2.9s I began to wonder how
>I (or anyone) can justify spending much more money on other
>speakers. Even the 2.5s had this effect on me. Mostly because
>of the NHTs superb balance, transparency and feeling of 'accuracy.'
I guess I should say what I think of 2.5i's. IMO, they are not the
most accurate speaker in the world for the price or on any other
critera. Every time I hear them in a different room, I think they
sound harsh on the top and flaccid on the bottom.
However, I find their imaging uniformly delightful, and their
packaging fits my listening room as well as I could hope for. The
midrange seems smooth, and that means a lot to me. The harshness does
not seem to be due to roughness or nonlinear distortion, IMO, it's
from their overall balance. When I was mentioning "smiling" speakers
(those that are tipped-up at both ends) in another post, my mind
immediately wanders to 2.5i's.
I ran my 2.5i's for a few days all by themselves and with a couple of
different amps. IMO, the amps made no difference at all, and in fact
I swapped the amp because I thought it might be broken the sound was
so bad. I then hooked up my subwoofer to clean up the bass, and this
really worked. I ran them like that for several months, but they
still seemed harsh.
Another amp swap (I've got 5 fairly decent amps kicking around the
house) and new speaker cables (16 gauge -> 12 gauge) later, they were
still harsh-sounding to me. However, the midrange and imaging
delighted me. I then added Eq to the system and this made all the
difference in the world.
>Many big buck speakers seemed to do one or several things well,
>but fell down noticeably in other areas. The NHTs just seemed to
>banish most of the problems other speakers struggled with.
I think a lot has to do with the room. I've described this room here
from time to time, and if I was going to write a song about it, I'd
use the music from Steppenwolf and change the words a bit, and call
it "Born to be harsh". Lots and lots of glass. A greenhouse would
have more glass, but that is about it. One window is 6' x 14', and
its less than half the glass in the room.
>While, ultimately, the NHT sound is not for me, I cannot
>believe anyone could impugn the fantastic engineering
>behind these speakers.
Certainly there is a lot of creativity and thought in the bigger
speakers in the line that is pretty obvious. The shape, the sloped
fronts, the crossover and driver choices all seem to be very much the
designer's own ideas.
If I was going to do it all over again, today, I'd keep my sub, and
do the system with NHT Pro A20's for mains and A10's elsewhere.
>Perhaps if NHT designed a zany-priced flagship
>speaker some audiophiles (with misplaced priorities)
>would take them more seriously.
No, the guy who said that NHT is not "High End" was Rothman, and his
argument was that since they are carried by a store in his area that
thinks is little but an appliance store, they can't be Hi End. If I
was going to put on that hat, I'd point to NHT's presence in
Crutchfield's catalog, (at times the whole line through the 3.3),
first. The store in question is an old-line high end store that I
visited a number of times when I lived in Miami. When I lived there
they had two locations, but according to the info I can find on the
web, they now only have one. I guess they've "broken the faith" and
now stock a few TV's - I think Zip said that once.
>High End with a bullet, I say.
That seems to be the consensus. ;-)
>(Arny, are you ever tempted by the 2.9s etc.?)
At one point I was seriously tempted by a good deal that was offered
to me on them. I had the cash, eay, but I did a little research and
found that they did not address my major complaint with the 2.5i's as
I use them today: they are hardly any taller.
Arny Krüger
Rich Harkness wrote in message
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
>>>speaker line is "high end".
>>>
>>>Whatcha think?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Definitely. I can't believe anyone could think otherwise.
buck
>>they deliver. When I listened to the 2.9s I began to wonder how
>>I (or anyone) can justify spending much more money on other
>>speakers. Even the 2.5s had this effect on me. Mostly because
>>of the NHTs superb balance, transparency and feeling of 'accuracy.'
>>but fell down noticeably in other areas. The NHTs just seemed to
>>banish most of the problems other speakers struggled with.
>>
>>believe anyone could impugn the fantastic engineering
>>behind these speakers.
>>
>>speaker some audiophiles (with misplaced priorities)
>>would take them more seriously.
>>
>>
>>
>>(Arny, are you ever tempted by the 2.9s etc.?)
>>
>
>he was asking "is NHT high end." I think they are, and that's
>why I started my first sentence "definitely."
If there was any doubt in my mind after reading your introduction,
your comments and the line "with a bullet" at the end seemed to
answer the question well enough.
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>Joseph's
>> > way out into the room about 5 ft. The 3.3's only extend about 3.5 ft.
>> > or so if properly placed against the rear wall and are considerably
>> > more slender. I'd actually gain usable space if I had them.
>>
>> True enough, but you'd still SEE them! I'd rather look at your Joseph's.
>> :-)~
>>
>> Sandman
>>
>>
>And I'd much rather hear the Joesphs, too! I was wondering what you were
>pushing with your ML gear, Ed. Nice, very nice!
Oh, the RM50's are wonderful, no doubt and no caveat. It's
just the I like the NHT 3.3. a lot. Along with the RM50, I found it
one of about 4 speakers I felt were worth much more than their asking
prices, along with the Waveform Mach 17 and one or two others when I
was searching for new speakers last year.
And, no, I hadn't listened to any Dunlavy's at that point, so
they weren't part of the comparison.
Ed
>
Edward M. Shain
Er......OK. We'll make sure none are offered.
Ed
Barry Rothman
continues to have zero to do with the quality of the NHT's, or even
their retail designation (though I still don't consider them a high
end line). (And by the way, I never once said the NHT's are low
quality speakers - as that was never the issue.) The only issue at
play is whether or not you really know what you are talking about when
you lambast the high end retail business. And based on your self
admitted experience level, the answer remains NO. Your comments bear
no relation to reality and possess no validity.
But, once again, Arny the deceitful poster has tried to turn a
commentary into something it wasn't in an all out effort to make
himself look good.
And that is all I have to say on the matter.
Paul Dormer
>I ran my 2.5i's for a few days all by themselves and with a couple of
>different amps. IMO, the amps made no difference at all, and in fact
>I swapped the amp because I thought it might be broken the sound was
>so bad. I then hooked up my subwoofer to clean up the bass, and this
>really worked. I ran them like that for several months, but they
>still seemed harsh.
It's probably the cables.. try some Audioquest.
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
George M. Middius
> > I started checking out NHT's based on personal Recommendations of
> > several friends in my HiFi club.
> Did you have the opportunity to audition them prior to purchase?
Here is Arnii's "audition":
Model 2.5
System Type: 3-way, vented
Drivers: 8" long-throw polypropylene subwoofer, 6.5" polypropylene
midrange, and 1" fluid cooled alumninum dome tweeter
In-room Response: 29Hz -25KHz +/-3dB
Sensitivity: 86dB @ 2.83V/M
Impedance: 6 ohms nom., (3.6 min.)
Suggested Amp. Power: 35w/ch - 200 w/ch
Dimensions: 38"H x 7"W x 15.5"D
Weight: 53 lbs. each
Finish: High gloss black, mahogany or sycamore laminate
Perfect!
George M. Middius
Dana Alan
arag...@aol.com (Aragonace) wrote:
> I cannot tolerate the sound of any of the NHT speakers I have heard to
date. I
> have been involved with audio for 25 years. My home system is worth about ten
> grand. I wouldn't take a pair of NHT's for free.
I've heard this from others. Even though I like detail in a speaker,
the NHT's are right at the upper boundary of what I consider to be
acceptable. I've frequently described their line of speakers as
having very aggressive, unforgiving tweeters.
IMHO, the opinion that NHT's are spitty, harsh, and overly bright
coming from people who like a smoother top end, is a very valid opinion.
Also it is not a rare opinion.
Given that these characteristics are frequently used to describe
mid-fi equipment, I find it only natural that a number of audiophiles
do consider NHT to be unacceptable mid-fi.
While I personally like the 2.9s and 3.3s a lot, they do render a
portion of one's CD collection unlistenable. As all of the
readers of this forum know, a fair number of CDs are poorly recorded
and some have too much treble applied to them during the mixing
process (many have commented that a lot of the CDs produced during
the 80's were from masters which had boosted high frequencies
intended for LPs). Through the aggressive tweeter on the NHTs,
these recordings are intolerable (IMHO).
So with a bright recording, or in an overly bright-sounding room,
or even with CD front ends/electronics that tend toward brightness,
an NHT can sound mid-fi. So proper system/room matching is
very important. NHT isn't alone in this ballpark, personally I
find some of the Thiel speakers to be even hotter on the top end.
Dana
Steve Zipser
> speaker line is "high end".
> Whatcha think?
I think NHT's are great speakers and I think you are wrong about
attitudes towards them and that makes you a fucking idiot.
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Labs Rega Eggleston Parasound CODA Audio Logic Audible Illusions NEAR
Miranda Oracle Gallo Faroudja Camelot Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy Lexicon Davis
Zenith INTEQ Mordaunt-Short EAD CleanLines ESP Monster Nakamichi Straightwire
Solid Steel NHT Niles Sonance Salamander Atlantis Chesky XRCD Entech DVDO
Let's Go Knicks!
Steve Zipser
In article <19990604041205...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
arag...@aol.com says...
> I cannot tolerate the sound of any of the NHT speakers I have heard to date. I
> have been involved with audio for 25 years. My home system is worth about ten
> grand. I wouldn't take a pair of NHT's for free.
>
Well, there were about 15 positive replies and then there was this above
trash. You might tell us what you didn't like about them, where did you
hear them, and what speakers you in fact own. As it stands, your post is
a whole lot of hot air.
Mama Middius
> > Did you have the opportunity to audition them prior to purchase?
>
> Here is Arnii's "audition":
>
> Perfect!
Georgie, papa and I were just discussing the problems you've had understanding
numbers. We were remembering all those late nights, as you sweated out addition
and subtraction. We're so glad the school gave you that math exemption so you
didn't have to go any further.
You always were a special person!
Mama
DWest1023
I have owned 3 pairs of 3.3''s and I can tell you, I cannot think of any othere
speaker that will sound better in a corner. That is exactly why I own them.
Unless you have heard them bi-amped, then you have not heard the 3.3's!
Don
(Formerly, HO...@HIS.COM)
tjknight
then I found JM Labs. No comparison.
Joe Duffy
this last flinch is like a dog who's
been kicked too much :-)
no offence.
joe
Ken Kantor
am speaking strictly from a historical perspective. I've
watched this thread develop, and feel many do no understand
the intent of your question.
NHT never developed products to "sound good" or review well.
Many listeners appreciated our view of what constitutes
reproduction accuracy, many did not. Taking our principles
to extremes led to extremes of marketplace opinion. Nothing
could please me more. Strats vs. Tele. Mustang vs. Vette.
Coke vs. Pepsi. Hobbyists have strong, self-righteous
opinions... at least they are listening.
But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
Not sonics or even retail price.
Arny Krüger wrote in message ...
Edward M. Shain
Of course you mean my defensive line about the Dunlavy's. No
offense taken. I just didn't want the thread to veer off course.
Ed
Sandman
George M. Middius <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in article
<375cd794...@news.alt.net>...
> Sandman said to ShittyBorg:
>
> > > I started checking out NHT's based on personal Recommendations of
> > > several friends in my HiFi club.
>
> > Did you have the opportunity to audition them prior to purchase?
>
> Here is Arnii's "audition":
>
> Model 2.5
> System Type: 3-way, vented
> Drivers: 8" long-throw polypropylene subwoofer, 6.5" polypropylene
> midrange, and 1" fluid cooled alumninum dome tweeter
> In-room Response: 29Hz -25KHz +/-3dB
> Sensitivity: 86dB @ 2.83V/M
> Impedance: 6 ohms nom., (3.6 min.)
> Suggested Amp. Power: 35w/ch - 200 w/ch
> Dimensions: 38"H x 7"W x 15.5"D
> Weight: 53 lbs. each
> Finish: High gloss black, mahogany or sycamore laminate
>
>
> Perfect!
But which one did he choose: black, mahogany or sycamore laminate?
And from Arnii's previous posts, his 1200 watter Mackies far exceed the
recommended power of 35 - 200 w/ch. Did he want to blow them up?
Sandman
Mike Hanson
last few months, including:
- Royd Albion
- Naim Credo
- Naim SBLs
- ProAc Response 2.5
- Jamo Concert 8
- Linn 5140
- Acoustic Energy AE1
- PMC LB1
- Forest Totem
- Gershman X1 (with and w/o sub)
- Gershman Avant Garde
- B&W Nautilus 805
- Angstrom Obligatto
Of all of these, the NHT 2.9's are definitely on my short list. Like
others, I do find the tweeter a little intense at times, but overall
I'm very impressed. Catch you later!
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
www.BoxsoftDevelopment.com
Sandman
Ken Kantor <ke...@nhtpro.com> wrote in article
<ei8$SIrr#GA...@ntawwabp.compuserve.com>...
> I no longer have any affilation with NHT home products, so I
> am speaking strictly from a historical perspective. I've
> watched this thread develop, and feel many do no understand
> the intent of your question.
>
> NHT never developed products to "sound good" or review well.
> Many listeners appreciated our view of what constitutes
> reproduction accuracy, many did not. Taking our principles
> to extremes led to extremes of marketplace opinion. Nothing
> could please me more. Strats vs. Tele. Mustang vs. Vette.
> Coke vs. Pepsi. Hobbyists have strong, self-righteous
> opinions... at least they are listening.
>
> But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
> survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
> explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
> we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
> price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
> distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
> decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
> especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
> Not sonics or even retail price.
FWIW, I think the Super-Zeros and Super-Ones offer great bang for the buck!
Sandman
>
> Arny Krüger wrote in message ...
#663
>> speaker line is "high end".
>> Whatcha think?
>
>attitudes towards them and that makes you a fucking idiot.
I think that Steve's post is another great example of what's wrong with
rec.audio.opinion. Arny has indicated in other posts that *one* individual
(namely Barry Rothman) has expressed the opinion that no product sold in
stores that also sell appliances can be considered high end. He has also
praised several NHT speakers (he owns two pairs). So what does Steve do?
He gives an incredibly vague answer that does not even begin to address
whether or not NHT's speakers are truly high-end, he misinterprets what
was actually written (*one* person had this opinion or "attitude"),
and he concludes by using foul language and name-calling. All in all,
truly poor behavior. Perhaps Steve is having a very bad day.
My opinion on NHT? I think that it's great that an audio company is trying
to bring state-of-the-art engineering (better sound through research!) to
affordably priced products. The fact that some of their items sell in big
stores should be simply a measure of the success of their strategy, not
the basis for a categorical dismissal of their upper models as not being
high-end.
However, I know very little about the true high-end.
Young-Ho
Sandman
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
<GWN53.2356$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
>
> Sandman wrote in message
> <01beae43$355bc0c0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>...
> >
> >
> >Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
> ><2UG53.2299$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
> >>
> >> Sandman wrote in message
> >> <01beaded$4b9409c0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>...
> >> >
> >> >Just out of curiosity, Arnii, where did you first hear or read of
> >> the NHT
> >> >models you purchased? I haven't followed your entire exchange
> with
> >> Barry
> >> >Rothman.
> >>
> >> I started checking out NHT's based on personal Recommendations of
> >> several friends in my HiFi club.
> >
> >Did you have the opportunity to audition them prior to purchase?
>
>
If I were treated that way in a store, I'd have left a lot earlier, and if
the salesguy ran after me in the parkinglot, I'd say, in my politest tones,
"You don't have time for me.... I don't have time for you." I'd also try
to find another outlet that carried the speakers I was interested in, and
demand that I have the opportunity to audition them at home prior to
purchase.
Sandman
George M. Middius
> > > Did you have the opportunity to audition them prior to purchase?
> > Here is Arnii's "audition":
> > Finish: High gloss black, mahogany or sycamore laminate
> But which one did he choose: black, mahogany or sycamore laminate?
I think it's safe to assume that when he went to the store
where they didn't realize he was a Professional Cheapskate
(see anecdote related in another thread), he got whatever
they were willing to sell him for $1600.
> And from Arnii's previous posts, his 1200 watter Mackies far exceed the
> recommended power of 35 - 200 w/ch. Did he want to blow them up?
Damn good question. Maybe Arnii has a special solution to
that potential problem -- like, f'rinstance, he clogs the
output capacitors with BorgFeces to lower their transient
peaks. Just guessing here.
George M. Middius
trotsky
Steve Zipser wrote:
> In article <19990604041205...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> arag...@aol.com says...
> > I cannot tolerate the sound of any of the NHT speakers I have heard to date. I
> > have been involved with audio for 25 years. My home system is worth about ten
> > grand. I wouldn't take a pair of NHT's for free.
> >
>
> Well, there were about 15 positive replies and then there was this above
> trash. You might tell us what you didn't like about them, where did you
> hear them, and what speakers you in fact own. As it stands, your post is
> a whole lot of hot air.
> Zip
Zip, Ken Kantor says you aren't an active NHT dealer. Could you explain this please?
Ken Kantor
Sandman wrote in message
<01beaeb6$95c74ce0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>...
Ken Kantor
trotsky wrote in message <37581F8B...@mc.net>...
Steve Zipser
Into the killfile you go.
Zip
In article <7j955q$1...@larmor.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>,
you...@larmor.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu says...
> In article <MPG.11c1bda7d...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> >Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in article
--
Anonymous
> It's probably the cables.. try some Audioquest.
ignorant troll. one of many.
reject
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Is NHT Mid Fi?
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:41:18 -0400
Organization: Sunshine Stereo, Inc.
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <MPG.11c1bda7d...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
References: <x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com> <01beaded$4b9409c0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.77.155.130
X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 928510877 28643 12.77.155.130 (4 Jun 1999 15:41:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 1999 15:41:17 GMT
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.11
.sig too long
http://www.netannounce.org/news.announce.newusers/
Barry Rothman
Ken Kantor wrote:
>
> I no longer have any affilation with NHT home products, so I
> am speaking strictly from a historical perspective. I've
> watched this thread develop, and feel many do no understand
> the intent of your question.
No they don't Ken. Arny's true intent is to bury the original
comments I have made and proved about his lack of understanding and
knowledge about high end retailers - to wit, his lambasting of them in
comparison to mid fi mass merchants.
>
> NHT never developed products to "sound good" or review well.
> Many listeners appreciated our view of what constitutes
> reproduction accuracy, many did not. Taking our principles
> to extremes led to extremes of marketplace opinion. Nothing
> could please me more. Strats vs. Tele. Mustang vs. Vette.
> Coke vs. Pepsi. Hobbyists have strong, self-righteous
> opinions... at least they are listening.
>
> But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
> survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
> explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
> we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
> price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
> distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
> decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
> especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
> Not sonics or even retail price.
Like you said, and I noted before, distribution exclusivity does in
fact define that retail segment, even though the sound quality of a
particular non high end product may indeed surpass what is sold in
that exclusive market segment.
Thanks for providing an insightful and knowledgeable answer.
ARE YOU READING THIS ARNY BOY.
> Arny Krüger wrote in message ...
Barry Rothman
TO DO WITH SOUND QUALITY BUT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT HOW A PRODUCT IS
DISTRIBUTED. READ IT AND WEEP. AND IN CASE I COME BACK FROM LONDON
AND FIND YOU ATTEMPTING TO POST DECEITFULLY ABOUT THIS, I'VE SAVED
KEN'S POST TO MY HARD DRIVE AND WILL POST IT EACH AND EVERY TIME I
NEED TO.
AND DON'T FORGET THAT MY MAIN COMMENT RELATED TO YOUR LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIGH END RETAILERS, HOW THEY OPERATE, AND HOW YOUR
LAMBASTING OF THEM COMES FROM A KNOWLEDGE BASE OF PRACTICALLY ZERO.
AND HERE WE HAVE EVEN MORE PROOF. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHICH YOU
SPEAK WHEN IT COMES TO THE HIGH END.
THANK YOU KEN.
Ken Kantor wrote:
>
> I no longer have any affilation with NHT home products, so I
> am speaking strictly from a historical perspective. I've
> watched this thread develop, and feel many do no understand
> the intent of your question.
>
> NHT never developed products to "sound good" or review well.
> Many listeners appreciated our view of what constitutes
> reproduction accuracy, many did not. Taking our principles
> to extremes led to extremes of marketplace opinion. Nothing
> could please me more. Strats vs. Tele. Mustang vs. Vette.
> Coke vs. Pepsi. Hobbyists have strong, self-righteous
> opinions... at least they are listening.
>
> But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
> survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
> explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
> we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
> price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
> distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
> decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
> especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
> Not sonics or even retail price.
>
ano...@cannotreply.net
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Is NHT Mid Fi?
Organization: Sunshine Stereo, Inc.
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <MPG.11c1be922...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
References: <x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com> <19990604041205...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.77.155.130
X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 928511108 28643 12.77.155.130 (4 Jun 1999 15:45:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 1999 15:45:08 GMT
Dana Alan
Agree.
The SuperOnes offer great clarity for the price. I remember
once listening to a piano piece through SO's, I thought they
did a better job than some $1000 speakers I've heard.
Also at the recent Hi-Fi'99, Hsu Research set up a very
nice sounding demo room consisting of their $499 sub and
a couple of SZ's. I think quite a few people were surprised
by how good a $700 speaker system could sound.
If I had an audio store, NHT would be a line that I would carry.
Good price/performers across the board. I'd compliment them with
another line that took a more laid-back approach.
Dana
George M. Middius
> Steve is not an NHTPro dealer.
Why not?
George M. Middius
Sander deWaal
wrote:
>> And from Arnii's previous posts, his 1200 watter Mackies far exceed the
>> recommended power of 35 - 200 w/ch. Did he want to blow them up?
>
>Damn good question. Maybe Arnii has a special solution to
>that potential problem -- like, f'rinstance, he clogs the
>output capacitors with BorgFeces to lower their transient
>peaks. Just guessing here.
My, my, George, you were consulting a *very* old radio handbook here.
Output capacitors are only to be found in SE amps, or asymmetrically
powered (mostly germanium) amps.
Neither of which is likely to be used by Arny, and I happen to know
that Mackies are truly symmetrical Silicon-based amplifiers.
Now, if you stated he used the 230 V range on his amp, in combination
with 22 gauge zipchord, fed from a software ABX comparator, you could
be right. (obvious satyricon deleted).
On a serious note: using an amp with more power than the rated power
of the speakers usually is better than the reverse.
Speaker overload is extremely easy to detect, unless one's deaf.<g>
Speakers will handle peaks without trouble, where a small, clipping
amp may destroy your tweeters.
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
Steve Zipser
says...
> Ken Kantor said:
>
> > Steve is not an NHTPro dealer.
>
> Why not?
What's it to you that you have a need to know?
Zip
Ken Kantor
intent. But a straightfoward exposition of fact and opinion
usually overwhelmes intent anyway.
Barry Rothman wrote in message
<37584306...@bellsouth.net>...
>No they don't Ken. Arny's true intent is to bury the
original
>comments I have made and proved about his lack of
understanding and
>knowledge about high end retailers - to wit, his lambasting
of them in
>comparison to mid fi mass merchants.
>
>
Ken Kantor
optimized for pro and prosumer use. That is where our sales
and marketing focus is, too. It is natural that the early
stages of adoption would be through dealers substantially
oriented this way. If Steve were to get alot of customer
inquiries about our products, or have the opportunity to do
some pro installs, I imagine he would contact us. Then all
the standard credit, territory and positioning issues would
arise.
George M. Middius wrote in message
<37874bd0....@newsreader.cais.net>...
>Ken Kantor said:
>
>> Steve is not an NHTPro dealer.
>
>Why not?
>
>
>George M. Middius
Jeff Adams
wrote:
>FWIW, I think the Super-Zeros and Super-Ones offer great bang for the buck!
One of the reasons I enjoy going to work is because I listen to some
Super One's in my small office (with an FSR-10 sub - sorry Ken, I
don't know what came over me :-)). They are _extremely_ enjoyable and
can help pass the day when things are otherwise not going too well.
For our living room system, I had to choose between 2.5 and PSB
Stratus Silver. While I slightly preferred the Silvers, I would have
been very happy with either. But the wife pretty well axed the 2.5
based on looks (oh well, there's just no accounting for taste - she
thinks that Martin Logans are the ugliest speakers she's ever seen,
where I think they are incredibly good looking!!!).
======CORRECT EMAIL: remove the xyz======================================
| Jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com) | GTE Electronic Systems Division |
| 650-966-2122 | Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
| Views expressed are mine and do not necessarily reflect the official |
| position of GTE or any of its subsidiaries |
==========================================================================
harkshep
>
> Don't you own Von Schweikert, Rich? I remember reading your rave review of
> the VR4. What made you spend the extra $1,000 on VSR, when you could have
> saved $1,000 plus by going with NHT 2.9?
>
Hi Gregory. For my tastes, the VR-4 Gen II was a special speaker that
made it easy to spend the cash. I find the VRs to sound fuller and more
'lush' than the NHTs. Plus they sound stage even better - deeper,
bigger instrumental sizes. And the sound seems to extend free of the
speaker boundaries to either side, whereas the NHTs presentation seemed
more obviously stuck between the speakers (although between the speakers
the imaging/soundstaging is superb). Few other speakers in the VR's
price range can give one the impression of 'immensity,' as is needed for
large orchestral pieces. I could go on, but suffice it to say the VR's
just did it for me. (Of course there are some elements
that I prefer in other speakers too).
After listening to many other systems I cannot believe how utterly
'boxless' and balanced the VRs sound from top to bottom in comparison.
(In my room/set-up).
Still, the NHTs were impressive.
Rich H.
(BTW, the new Audio Physic Libra is fantastic! Betters the Virgo in
many areas.)
Rich Harkness
<3eO53.2357$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> I guess I should say what I think of 2.5i's.
IMO, they are not the
> most accurate speaker in the world for the price
or on any other
> critera. Every time I hear them in a different
room, I think they
> sound harsh on the top and flaccid on the
bottom.
>
> However, I find their imaging uniformly
delightful, and their
> packaging fits my listening room as well as I
could hope for. The
> midrange seems smooth, and that means a lot to
me. The harshness does
> not seem to be due to roughness or nonlinear
distortion, IMO, it's
> from their overall balance. When I was
mentioning "smiling" speakers
> (those that are tipped-up at both ends) in
another post, my mind
> immediately wanders to 2.5i's.
Arny, I heard the 2.5s a while back, so I wouldn't
dispute the colorations you hear from them.
However, I remember the impression that
they sounded more truthful and controlled than
any of the other similarly priced speakers I had
heard that day. (Although I hardly remember
feeling they were perfect).
I'm quite sensitive to the 'smiling' frequency
sound and generally dislike it as I prefer an
extremely full mid-range (I lived with ESL-63s
before getting the VR-4 Gen IIs).
I don't remember perceiving the 'smile' with
the 2.9s - did you find the bigger NHTs to
be tipped up at either end as well?
Rich H.
Armand
nob...@neuropa.net says...
>
>"Paul Dormer" wrote:
>
>> It's probably the cables.. try some Audioquest.
>
>ignorant troll. one of many.
You're absolutely right, Mc. Try Transparent. :D
Armand
Steve Zipser
I will be calling Mike Hench on Tuesday. We have been doing a fair
amount of business with the pro industry lately - re Celene Dion,
Humberto Gattica, Eric Schilling, Joe Galdo at South Beach Studio, Vlado
Meiller, the engineers at the New World Orchestra, - as well as
presentations for Island Records, RYKO Disc, etc.
I try to create customer inqiries with our own advertising and promotion,
rather than wait till the product already has demand status. Besides,
its time we toured the Clevelander and watched the interesting 'sites' of
South Beach again ;-)
I know your design capabilities and they are impressive, and in spite of
that, you are OK!
Cheers
Zip
In article <ub7Uu6tr#GA....@nih2naad.prod2.compuserve.com>,
ke...@nhtpro.com says...
--
Steve Zipser
says...
> The curiosities emanating from La Granja del Sol never stop
> fascinating me. Besides, Ken is making nicey-nicey with you.
>
George:
Ken and I have always gotten along well. He is a terrific designer and
engineer. If we do not see eye to eye on all things audio, that's life/
Besides, I have no idea what curiosities you are referring to.
Zip
Ken Kantor
Jeff Adams wrote in message
<37585b59...@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
Rob Bertrando
meant NHT was not high end (regardless of your actual beliefs on that
subject).
Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:37584475...@bellsouth.net...
Ken Kantor
--
Ken Kantor
Vergence Technology, Inc.
www.nhtpro.com
George M. Middius wrote in message
<378c69ee....@newsreader.cais.net>...
>Ken Kantor said:
>
>> Actually, I'm not so quick to judge Arny's true
>> intent. But a straightfoward exposition of fact and opinion
>> usually overwhelmes intent anyway.
>
>Some days you wake up, and it's like the past never existed.
>
>
>George M. Middius
Ken Kantor
high end, nor do I feel that. What I said was that NHT did not take a
traditional high end approach. I further tried to imply two things:
1- That I understand why someone with a traditional point of view
might be hesitant to think of NHT as high end, regardless of the
sound.
2- That I don't care what label is used, especially since there are no
definitions. I only care if the product meets the expectations of the
customer and the investors. By my own criteria, and by general market
criteria, NHT was/is a very high end brand. Who is "really Liberal"?
Who is "really rich"? What is "truely high end"? I think
benchmarking intangibles is really a waste of time.
--
Ken Kantor
Vergence Technology, Inc.
www.nhtpro.com
Arny Krüger wrote in message
<1V%53.2541$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
>
>Posters that suggest NHT is high end:
>
>Dana Alan, Rich Harkness, Trevpor Wilson, Edward Howe, Ed Shain, Mike
>Hanson, Young Ho, Steve Zipser, Jeff Adams, Thoms Van Horn
>
>Posters suggesting it is not:
>
>Aragonance, Ken Kantor
>
>Kantor's post is interesting. He really seems to be suggesting that
>"high end" was not a critieria he had in mind when he founded NHT,
>which is not the same as saying that as they exist in the market
>today, they are not high end. But counting his post as "anti" does
>little to sway the outcome, which is that the overwhelming majority
>disagrees with you.
>
>Since this a marketing issue, not audio science, it seems to me that
>public opinion is highly relevant.
>
>
BPM Mixmaster Remailer
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Is NHT Mid Fi?
Organization: Sunshine Stereo, Inc.
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <MPG.11c23cf77...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
References: <x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com> <19990604041205...@ng-cm1.aol.com> <MPG.11c1be922...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
<37581F8B...@mc.net> <#06DmQsr#GA....@nih2naaf.prod2.compuserve.com> <37874bd0....@newsreader.cais.net> <MPG.11c228d89...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
<378b6829....@newsreader.cais.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.77.148.218
X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 928543466 24659 12.77.148.218 (5 Jun 1999 00:44:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Jun 1999 00:44:26 GMT
Ken Kantor
--
Ken Kantor
Vergence Technology, Inc.
www.nhtpro.com
Armand wrote in message <7j9pdu$ko1$2...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>In article <ei8$SIrr#GA...@ntawwabp.compuserve.com>, ke...@nhtpro.com
>says...
>
> Strats vs. Tele. Mustang vs. Vette.
>>Coke vs. Pepsi. Hobbyists have strong, self-righteous
>>opinions... at least they are listening.
>
>That's Strats vs. Les Pauls, Ken, ;}... and couldn't agree more.
>
>Armand
>
Papa Middius
> Some days you wake up, and it's like the past never existed.
Ah, my boy, but the past DID exist. Remember when I had to give you
spankings? Remember the "woodshed"? Ah, those were the days, weren't
they m'boy?
Sex just hasn't been the same since you moved out. Mama thinks that's
why you've turned out like this.
Papa
Papa Middius
Papa
Papa Middius
> I try to create customer inqiries with our own advertising and promotion,
> rather than wait till the product already has demand status. Besides,
> its time we toured the Clevelander and watched the interesting 'sites' of
> South Beach again ;-)
>
> I know your design capabilities and they are impressive, and in spite of
> that, you are OK!
Mr. Zipser, when you are done sucking up and sucking off, please wipe the cum
from around your lips. There is nothing more disturbing than a fellow male Jew
with male ejaculation on his face. Especially Goy ejaculation.
Papa Middius
Brian L. McCarty
----------
In article <MPG.11c1bda7d...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
z...@sunswinestereo.com (Steve Zipswinestein) wrote:
> I think NHT's are great speakers and I think you are wrong about
> attitudes towards them and that makes you a fucking idiot.
Funny, but as a SALESHACK don't you always believe EVERYTHING you sell is
"great"? And what about when you get your dealership pulled (as has
happened dozens of times)? Why do you then always change your mind?
Brian L. McCarty
----------
In article <7j955q$1...@larmor.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>,
you...@larmor.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu (#663) wrote:
> So what does Steve do?
> He gives an incredibly vague answer that does not even begin to address
> whether or not NHT's speakers are truly high-end, he misinterprets what
> was actually written (*one* person had this opinion or "attitude"),
> and he concludes by using foul language and name-calling. All in all,
> truly poor behavior. Perhaps Steve is having a very bad day.
Then EVERY day is a bad day for this SALESHACK, because this is the "normal"
response that everyone gets from Zippie. Filthy gutter talk is why so many
manufacturers (and so many ISP's) have pulled the plug on this salesdrone.
And the reason his business is "for sale"; without the frequent shakedowns
of his mother-in-law for more cash, there is NO BUSINESS!
Sorry you had to notice this uncouth behaviour, Young Ho.
Armand
George M. Middius
> > > Steve is not an NHTPro dealer.
> > Why not?
> What's it to you that you have a need to know?
The curiosities emanating from La Granja del Sol never stop
fascinating me. Besides, Ken is making nicey-nicey with you.
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
> Actually, I'm not so quick to judge Arny's true
> intent. But a straightfoward exposition of fact and opinion
> usually overwhelmes intent anyway.
Some days you wake up, and it's like the past never existed.
George M. Middius
Arny Krüger
Rich Harkness wrote in message
<37586391....@news.yec1.on.wave.home.com>...
Hard for me to compare, as I was not able to listen to them in the
same room.
Arny Krüger
>>
>> I no longer have any affilation with NHT home products, so I
>> am speaking strictly from a historical perspective. I've
>> watched this thread develop, and feel many do no understand
>> the intent of your question.
>
>comments I have made and proved about his lack of understanding and
>knowledge about high end retailers - to wit, his lambasting of them
in
>comparison to mid fi mass merchants.
Actually, these are Barry's perceptions, not what I said or meant. I
think my statements rather clearly show that I see many comparable
flaws with both high end and mass merchants, and am equally critical
of both.
>
>> But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
>> survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
>> explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
>> we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
>> price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
>> distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
>> decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
>> especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
>> Not sonics or even retail price.
>
>Like you said, and I noted before, distribution exclusivity does in
>fact define that retail segment, even though the sound quality of a
>particular non high end product may indeed surpass what is sold in
>that exclusive market segment.
>
>Thanks for providing an insightful and knowledgeable answer.
>ARE YOU READING THIS ARNY BOY.
Actually, I'm not because the text of the post you are responding to
is not on the NG server I'm posting from, yet.
However, I see quite a bit of "selectivity" in your "vision" of this
thread.
George M. Middius
> I, for one, always understood your point, Barry, and never dreamed that you
> meant NHT was not high end (regardless of your actual beliefs on that
> subject).
Well said. Nobody with a brain™ had any doubt what this
particular discussion was about. As usual, FecalBorg dredges
up the contents of his septic tank in order obscure his lies
and propaganda.
George M. Middius
Arny Krüger
Barry Rothman wrote in message <37584475...@bellsouth.net>...
>HERE IT IS ARNY. IT IS ALL ABOUT DISTRIBUTION.
Actually, it is all about the perception of the consumers.
>IT NEVER HAD ANYTHING
>TO DO WITH SOUND QUALITY BUT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT HOW A PRODUCT IS
>DISTRIBUTED.
Actually, it is all about the perception of the consumers.
>READ IT AND WEEP. AND IN CASE I COME BACK FROM LONDON
>AND FIND YOU ATTEMPTING TO POST DECEITFULLY ABOUT THIS, I'VE SAVED
>KEN'S POST TO MY HARD DRIVE AND WILL POST IT EACH AND EVERY TIME I
>NEED TO.
I suggest that you do what I do, and that is put it in a text file so
that it can be cut and pasted.
>AND DON'T FORGET THAT MY MAIN COMMENT RELATED TO YOUR LACK OF
>KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIGH END RETAILERS, HOW THEY OPERATE, AND HOW YOUR
>LAMBASTING OF THEM COMES FROM A KNOWLEDGE BASE OF PRACTICALLY ZERO.
I'm ROTFLMAO. If your claim was true, getting a widespread "high
end" reputation for a product would be a lot simpler than it is.
>AND HERE WE HAVE EVEN MORE PROOF. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHICH YOU
>SPEAK WHEN IT COMES TO THE HIGH END.
I know that whether or not a product is considered high end is
ultimately based on the perceptions of the consumers.
>Ken Kantor wrote:
>>
>> I no longer have any affilation with NHT home products, so I
>> am speaking strictly from a historical perspective. I've
>> watched this thread develop, and feel many do no understand
>> the intent of your question.
>>
>> NHT never developed products to "sound good" or review well.
>> Many listeners appreciated our view of what constitutes
>> reproduction accuracy, many did not. Taking our principles
>> to extremes led to extremes of marketplace opinion. Nothing
>> could please me more. Strats vs. Tele. Mustang vs. Vette.
>> Coke vs. Pepsi. Hobbyists have strong, self-righteous
>> opinions... at least they are listening.
>> But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
>> survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
>> explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
>> we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
>> price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
>> distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
>> decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
>> especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
>> Not sonics or even retail price.
Notice that Ken said: "We adopted a distribution, marketing and
pricing profile that was
decidedly NOT traditional "high end".
I interpret this to mean that NHT decided not to pander to the
traditional customs and practices of high end audio marketplace.
>Dealer margins and, especially, distribution exclusivity define
that segment.
I don't think so. I think that buyer opinion and buying habits define
which segment a product falls into.
You can set margins and distribution any which way including "loose",
and if customers don't perceive a product to be "high end", it ain't.
NHT may not achieved high end status using traditional means, but
that does not mean that they are not widely perceived to be high end.
I'm sure that if my straw pole on RAO were expanded, the outcome
percentage-wise would remain against your viewpoint.
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman wrote in message <37584306...@bellsouth.net>...
> >
> >
> >No they don't Ken. Arny's true intent is to bury the original
> >comments I have made and proved about his lack of understanding and
> >knowledge about high end retailers - to wit, his lambasting of them
> in comparison to mid fi mass merchants.
>
> Actually, these are Barry's perceptions, not what I said or meant. I
> think my statements rather clearly show that I see many comparable
> flaws with both high end and mass merchants, and am equally critical
> of both.
> >
Liar, liar, liar.
> >> But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
> >> survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
> >> explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
> >> we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
> >> price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
> >> distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
> >> decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
> >> especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
> >> Not sonics or even retail price.
> >
> >Like you said, and I noted before, distribution exclusivity does in
> >fact define that retail segment, even though the sound quality of a
> >particular non high end product may indeed surpass what is sold in
> >that exclusive market segment.
> >
> >Thanks for providing an insightful and knowledgeable answer.
>
> >ARE YOU READING THIS ARNY BOY.
>
> Actually, I'm not because the text of the post you are responding to
> is not on the NG server I'm posting from, yet.
Liar, liar, liar.
>
> However, I see quite a bit of "selectivity" in your "vision" of this
> thread.
Liar, liar, liar. These are Ken's words pure and simple.
Besides the key point was how you attempted to twist this into a
discussion of whether the NHT's were mid fi or not, all in a very
clear effort to obfuscate the original dialogue. That being that you
have little or no personal experience upon which to base your comments
about high end retailers.
> Posters that suggest NHT is high end:
I couldn't care less. Ken Kantor seems to indicate that high end is
in fact a retail segment designation that in large part requires
distribution exclusivity, which was my point.
>
> Dana Alan, Rich Harkness, Trevpor Wilson, Edward Howe, Ed Shain, Mike
> Hanson, Young Ho, Steve Zipser, Jeff Adams, Thoms Van Horn
>
> Posters suggesting it is not:
> Aragonance, Ken Kantor
>
And Kantor is the guy who shaped the marketing and distribution
strategy for NHT. So let's decide who's opinion is more valuable on
this issue of what constitutes a high end product, Arny or Ken. Gee,
that's a tough one, considering that you know next to nothing about
high end retailing.
> Kantor's post is interesting. He really seems to be suggesting that
> "high end" was not a critieria he had in mind when he founded NHT,
> which is not the same as saying that as they exist in the market
> today, they are not high end. But counting his post as "anti" does
> little to sway the outcome, which is that the overwhelming majority
> disagrees with you.
>
> Since this a marketing issue, not audio science, it seems to me that
> public opinion is highly relevant.
Give it rest. Liar, liar, liar.
Barry Rothman
Rob Bertrando wrote:
>
> I, for one, always understood your point, Barry, and never dreamed that you
> meant NHT was not high end (regardless of your actual beliefs on that
> subject).
>
Thank you Rob. For you see, it matters not how good (or bad) a
product sounds. As I noted, there are crummy sounding high end
products, great sounding mid fi products, lots of stuff in between and
some great sounding high products (and likewise some great sounding
mid fi products). But retailing and retail designations are a
different matter and bear no relation, necessarily, to how a product
sounds.
That Arny can't understand this is part and parcel of his lack of
understanding about high end retailing and why his negative comments
about high end retailers should be viewed as invalid.
BR
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:37584475...@bellsouth.net...
> > HERE IT IS ARNY. IT IS ALL ABOUT DISTRIBUTION. IT NEVER HAD ANYTHING
> > TO DO WITH SOUND QUALITY BUT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT HOW A PRODUCT IS
> > DISTRIBUTED. READ IT AND WEEP. AND IN CASE I COME BACK FROM LONDON
> > AND FIND YOU ATTEMPTING TO POST DECEITFULLY ABOUT THIS, I'VE SAVED
> > KEN'S POST TO MY HARD DRIVE AND WILL POST IT EACH AND EVERY TIME I
> > NEED TO.
> >
> > AND DON'T FORGET THAT MY MAIN COMMENT RELATED TO YOUR LACK OF
> > KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIGH END RETAILERS, HOW THEY OPERATE, AND HOW YOUR
> > LAMBASTING OF THEM COMES FROM A KNOWLEDGE BASE OF PRACTICALLY ZERO.
> > AND HERE WE HAVE EVEN MORE PROOF. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHICH YOU
> > SPEAK WHEN IT COMES TO THE HIGH END.
> >
> > THANK YOU KEN.
> >
> > Ken Kantor wrote:
> > >
> > > I no longer have any affilation with NHT home products, so I
> > > am speaking strictly from a historical perspective. I've
> > > watched this thread develop, and feel many do no understand
> > > the intent of your question.
> > >
> > > NHT never developed products to "sound good" or review well.
> > > Many listeners appreciated our view of what constitutes
> > > reproduction accuracy, many did not. Taking our principles
> > > to extremes led to extremes of marketplace opinion. Nothing
> > > could please me more. Strats vs. Tele. Mustang vs. Vette.
> > > Coke vs. Pepsi. Hobbyists have strong, self-righteous
> > > opinions... at least they are listening.
> > >
> > > But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
> > > survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
> > > explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
> > > we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
> > > price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
> > > distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
> > > decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
> > > especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
> > > Not sonics or even retail price.
> > >
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman wrote in message <37584475...@bellsouth.net>...
>
> >HERE IT IS ARNY. IT IS ALL ABOUT DISTRIBUTION.
>
> Actually, it is all about the perception of the consumers.
Liar, liar, liar.
>
> >IT NEVER HAD ANYTHING
> >TO DO WITH SOUND QUALITY BUT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT HOW A PRODUCT IS
> >DISTRIBUTED.
>
> Actually, it is all about the perception of the consumers.
Liar, liar, liar.
>
> >READ IT AND WEEP. AND IN CASE I COME BACK FROM LONDON
> >AND FIND YOU ATTEMPTING TO POST DECEITFULLY ABOUT THIS, I'VE SAVED
> >KEN'S POST TO MY HARD DRIVE AND WILL POST IT EACH AND EVERY TIME I
> >NEED TO.
>
> I suggest that you do what I do, and that is put it in a text file so
> that it can be cut and pasted.
Liar, liar, liar.
>
> >AND DON'T FORGET THAT MY MAIN COMMENT RELATED TO YOUR LACK OF
> >KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIGH END RETAILERS, HOW THEY OPERATE, AND HOW YOUR
> >LAMBASTING OF THEM COMES FROM A KNOWLEDGE BASE OF PRACTICALLY ZERO.
>
> I'm ROTFLMAO. If your claim was true, getting a widespread "high
> end" reputation for a product would be a lot simpler than it is.
Liar, liar, liar.
>
> >AND HERE WE HAVE EVEN MORE PROOF. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHICH YOU
> >SPEAK WHEN IT COMES TO THE HIGH END.
>
> I know that whether or not a product is considered high end is
> ultimately based on the perceptions of the consumers.
Liar, liar, liar.
>
> >Ken Kantor wrote:
> >>
> >> I no longer have any affilation with NHT home products, so I
> >> am speaking strictly from a historical perspective. I've
> >> watched this thread develop, and feel many do no understand
> >> the intent of your question.
> >>
> >> NHT never developed products to "sound good" or review well.
> >> Many listeners appreciated our view of what constitutes
> >> reproduction accuracy, many did not. Taking our principles
> >> to extremes led to extremes of marketplace opinion. Nothing
> >> could please me more. Strats vs. Tele. Mustang vs. Vette.
> >> Coke vs. Pepsi. Hobbyists have strong, self-righteous
> >> opinions... at least they are listening.
>
> >> But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
> >> survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
> >> explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
> >> we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
> >> price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
> >> distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
> >> decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
> >> especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
> >> Not sonics or even retail price.
>
> Notice that Ken said: "We adopted a distribution, marketing and
> pricing profile that was
> decidedly NOT traditional "high end".
Liar, liar, liar.
>
> I interpret this to mean that NHT decided not to pander to the
> traditional customs and practices of high end audio marketplace.
>
> >Dealer margins and, especially, distribution exclusivity define
> that segment.
>
> I don't think so. I think that buyer opinion and buying habits define
> which segment a product falls into.
Really? So if we found thousands of people who claimed that a certain
set of speakers from Radio Shack were the cat's meow, and felt they
were high end, I guess Radio Shack would be considered either a high
end retailer or manufacturer?
Oh, by the way: Liar, liar, liar.
>
> You can set margins and distribution any which way including "loose",
> and if customers don't perceive a product to be "high end", it ain't.
Liar, liar, liar.
>
> NHT may not achieved high end status using traditional means, but
> that does not mean that they are not widely perceived to be high end.
> I'm sure that if my straw pole on RAO were expanded, the outcome
> percentage-wise would remain against your viewpoint.
Liar, liar, liar. You know nothing, always attempt to obfuscate the
real intent of comments from anyone here on RAO who disagrees with
you, and never admit you are wrong. Liar, liar, liar.
mnob...@usa.net
>
> The opinion has been expressed on RAO that no product in the NHT
> speaker line is "high end".
>
> Whatcha think?
Think folks should listen to the Model 2.9 and 3.3.
If accuracy makes these speakers "mid-fi", then take
Thiel out of the race as well.
Michael
.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Secret Squirrel
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Is NHT Mid Fi?
Organization: Sunshine Stereo, Inc.
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <MPG.11c228d89...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
References: <x1z53.2234$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com> <19990604041205...@ng-cm1.aol.com> <MPG.11c1be922...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
<37581F8B...@mc.net> <#06DmQsr#GA....@nih2naaf.prod2.compuserve.com> <37874bd0....@newsreader.cais.net>
X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 928538314 21998 12.77.146.215 (4 Jun 1999 23:18:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jun 1999 23:18:34 GMT
Sandman
Dana Alan <alan...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<alan_dana-040...@dyn-19-52.doit.wisc.edu>...
>
> > Sandman wrote in message
> > <01beaeb6$95c74ce0$0b5f...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net>...
> > >
> > >FWIW, I think the Super-Zeros and Super-Ones offer great
> > bang for the buck!
>
> Agree.
>
> The SuperOnes offer great clarity for the price. I remember
> once listening to a piano piece through SO's, I thought they
> did a better job than some $1000 speakers I've heard.
>
> Also at the recent Hi-Fi'99, Hsu Research set up a very
> nice sounding demo room consisting of their $499 sub and
> a couple of SZ's. I think quite a few people were surprised
> by how good a $700 speaker system could sound.
>
> If I had an audio store, NHT would be a line that I would carry.
> Good price/performers across the board. I'd compliment them with
> another line that took a more laid-back approach.
I may set one up someday and I agree, products like NHT, Marantz, NAD, etc.
which have so many good price/performers in their line would definitely be
displayed... in addition of course, to some of the "pricier" stuff...
Sandman
Sandman
Jeff Adams <jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com> wrote in article
<37585b59...@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
> On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 18:17:32 GMT, "Sandman" <sand...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >FWIW, I think the Super-Zeros and Super-Ones offer great bang for the
buck!
>
> One of the reasons I enjoy going to work is because I listen to some
> Super One's in my small office (with an FSR-10 sub - sorry Ken, I
> don't know what came over me :-)). They are _extremely_ enjoyable and
> can help pass the day when things are otherwise not going too well.
>
> For our living room system, I had to choose between 2.5 and PSB
> Stratus Silver. While I slightly preferred the Silvers, I would have
> been very happy with either. But the wife pretty well axed the 2.5
> based on looks (oh well, there's just no accounting for taste - she
> thinks that Martin Logans are the ugliest speakers she's ever seen,
> where I think they are incredibly good looking!!!).
Fortunately, my wife thinks my ML's are gorgeous.
Sandman
Booniebug
>Yeah, that is what I was thinking of. Strat guy myself. Coke. RX-7.
>
Strat guy too. Coke guy too. But I want one of those new Audi TTs like
nobody's business!
Boon
Booniebug
>Fortunately, my wife thinks my ML's are gorgeous.
>
My wife noticed the ML Aerius speakers on "Friends" (in Joey and Chandler's
living room...sadly the rest of their stereo is invisible), and she wants to
trade in our Spendor SP100s.
Boon
Arny Krüger
Ken Kantor wrote in message
<#BYa#Oxr#GA....@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>...
>Yeah, that is what I was thinking of. Strat guy myself. Coke.
RX-7.
>
Never learned to play guitar. Pepsi. 4v, 4 cam V6 Mystique.
Arny Krüger
Barry Rothman wrote in message <3758A3C6...@bellsouth.net>...
>
>
>"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>>
>> Barry Rothman wrote in message
<37584475...@bellsouth.net>...
>>
>> >HERE IT IS ARNY. IT IS ALL ABOUT DISTRIBUTION.
>>
>> Actually, it is all about the perception of the consumers.
>
>Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
opinions I'm dispensing here about market segments is both what I
sincerily believe, and there are a lot of people (names provided) who
seem to agree with me.
>> >IT NEVER HAD ANYTHING
>> >TO DO WITH SOUND QUALITY BUT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT HOW A PRODUCT IS
>> >DISTRIBUTED.
>> Actually, it is all about the perception of the consumers.
>
>Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
opinions I'm dispensing here about market segments is both what I
sincerily believe, and there are a lot of people (names provided) who
agree with me.
>
>> >READ IT AND WEEP. AND IN CASE I COME BACK FROM LONDON
>> >AND FIND YOU ATTEMPTING TO POST DECEITFULLY ABOUT THIS, I'VE
SAVED
>> >KEN'S POST TO MY HARD DRIVE AND WILL POST IT EACH AND EVERY TIME
I
>> >NEED TO.
>>
>> I suggest that you do what I do, and that is put it in a text file
so
>> that it can be cut and pasted.
>
>Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
procedure I just listed out is well-known and has worked for me and
others for years.
>> >AND DON'T FORGET THAT MY MAIN COMMENT RELATED TO YOUR LACK OF
>> >KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIGH END RETAILERS, HOW THEY OPERATE, AND HOW
YOUR
>> >LAMBASTING OF THEM COMES FROM A KNOWLEDGE BASE OF PRACTICALLY
ZERO.
>>
>> I'm ROTFLMAO. If your claim was true, getting a widespread "high
>> end" reputation for a product would be a lot simpler than it is.
>Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
opinions I'm dispensing here about market segments s both what I
sincerily believe, and there are a lot of people (names provided) who
agree with me.
>> >AND HERE WE HAVE EVEN MORE PROOF. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHICH
YOU
>> >SPEAK WHEN IT COMES TO THE HIGH END.
>> I know that whether or not a product is considered high end is
>> ultimately based on the perceptions of the consumers.
>Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
opinions I'm dispensing here about market segments is both what I
sincerily believe, and there are a lot of people (names provided) who
agree with me.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
sentence I pointed out was taken from Kantor's own words, posted
immediately above, and quoted from a post by you.
>> I interpret this to mean that NHT decided not to pander to the
>> traditional customs and practices of high end audio marketplace.
>>
>> >Dealer margins and, especially, distribution exclusivity define
>> that segment.
>>
>> I don't think so. I think that buyer opinion and buying habits
define
>> which segment a product falls into.
>Really? So if we found thousands of people who claimed that a
certain
>set of speakers from Radio Shack were the cat's meow, and felt they
>were high end, I guess Radio Shack would be considered either a high
>end retailer or manufacturer?
If that unlikely event were to happen, it would appear that we would
have to face the fact that RS was making and/or selling a high end
product. Just because a vendor (Say Harmon International) has a high
end product line (Say Revel) does not make everything they sell (say
the $39.95 JBL mini-speakers) "high end", now does it?
>Oh, by the way: Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else.
>> You can set margins and distribution any which way including
"loose",
>> and if customers don't perceive a product to be "high end", it
ain't.
>Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else.
>> NHT may not achieved high end status using traditional means, but
>> that does not mean that they are not widely perceived to be high
end.
>> I'm sure that if my straw pole on RAO were expanded, the outcome
>> percentage-wise would remain against your viewpoint.
>Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
opinions I'm dispensing here about market segments is both what I
sincerily believe, and there are a lot of people (names provided) who
agree with me.
>You know nothing, always attempt to obfuscate the
>real intent of comments from anyone here on RAO who disagrees with
>you, and never admit you are wrong. Liar, liar, liar.
I think you've demonstrated your narrow, rigid, delusional
personality quite enough.
Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
opinions I'm dispensing here about market segments is both what I
sincerily believe, and there are a lot of people (names provided) who
agree with me.
I regret the fact that I provoked this reprehensible outburst by
Barry, and apologise to the RAO community for my part in your being
exposed to his demented screams of anguish. Barry has been delusional
before, but I can't recall any outbursts this grevious.
Arny Krüger
Barry Rothman wrote in message <3758A2B8...@bellsouth.net>...
>
>
>Rob Bertrando wrote:
>>
>> I, for one, always understood your point, Barry, and never dreamed
that you
that
>> subject).
>>
>
>Thank you Rob. For you see, it matters not how good (or bad) a
>product sounds. As I noted, there are crummy sounding high end
>products, great sounding mid fi products, lots of stuff in between
and
>some great sounding high products (and likewise some great sounding
>mid fi products). But retailing and retail designations are a
>different matter and bear no relation, necessarily, to how a product
>sounds.
>
>That Arny can't understand this is part and parcel of his lack of
>understanding about high end retailing and why his negative comments
>about high end retailers should be viewed as invalid.
I think that the gist of Bob's post is pretty clear. Like me, he
understood the gist of what you were saying, but unlike me, he did
not initially understand the extreme interpretation that you attached
to it. It seems like he "got it" now.
Arny Krüger
>Arny Krüger wrote:
>>Kantor's post is interesting. He really seems to be suggesting that
>>"high end" was not a critieria he had in mind when he founded NHT,
>>which is not the same as saying that as they exist in the market
>>today, they are not high end.
Ken Kantor wrote:.
>I never said NHT wasn't high end, nor do I feel that.
That's is basically how I wanted to see your initial message on this
thread to be interpreted, even though Rothman wanted to intrepret it
the other way.
>What I said was that NHT did not take a traditional high end
approach.
I've spent some time thinking about your use of the word
"traditional". I think that in the context of the last 25 years, I
largely agree with you. However, my experience with "the high end"
goes back about another 15 years before that. I call my first 15
years of my experience with high end audio "traditional high end",
but the next 25 years includes the rise of what I call the"religious
high end". I distinguish the two based on whether or not the claims
made by equipment vendors can be justified by science and/or reliable
observation.
I further tried to imply two things:
>1- That I understand why someone with a traditional point of view
>might be hesitant to think of NHT as high end, regardless of the
sound.
If you use the word "traditional" as I think of it, this is probably
not the case. I see NHT as being a high end vendor as I saw most high
end vendors up to the mid-70's or so. You had a product that was
innovative, had a distinctive sytle, appealed to people with
discriminating tastes, and was fairly costly. It also had limited
distribution.
>2- That I don't care what label is used, especially since there are
no
>definitions.
Not formal ones, maybe.
But the term has a published definition:
http://lycos.infoplease.com/search.php3?query=high+end&in=dictionary&
go.x=10&go.y=16
"Informal. being the most expensive and technically sophisticated:
high-end stereo equipment."
>I only care if the product meets the expectations of the
>customer and the investors.
That marks you as a business man. ;-)
>By my own criteria, and by general market
>criteria, NHT was/is a very high end brand.
Just about everybody but Rothman agrees with you.
Steve Zipser
k...@nhtpro.com says...
> Yeah, that is what I was thinking of. Strat guy myself. Coke. RX-7.
>
I am willing to bet that BECK'S GUITAR SHOP is one of your favorite
tracks. It cerainly sounds awesome on the 3.3's......I'M A STRAT CAT,
says Beck!
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Labs Rega Eggleston Parasound CODA Audio Logic Audible Illusions NEAR
Miranda Oracle Gallo Faroudja Camelot Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy Lexicon Davis
Zenith INTEQ Mordaunt-Short EAD CleanLines ESP Monster Nakamichi Straightwire
Solid Steel NHT Niles Sonance Salamander Atlantis Chesky XRCD Entech DVDO
Let's Go Knicks!
Edward M. Shain
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>>
Ken Kantor explained---------------->
>> >> But NHT saw the need to reach a critical mass in size to
>> >> survive, and be in a position to innovate. And we
>> >> explicitly wanted to reach a broad range of customers that
>> >> we felt weren't then being offered excellent sound in their
>> >> price range and lifestyle patterns. Thus, we adopted a
>> >> distribution, marketing and pricing profile that was
>> >> decidedly NOT traditional "high end". Dealer margins and,
>> >> especially, distribution exclusivity define that segment.
>> >> Not sonics or even retail price.
>>
Mr. Kruger interjected-------------->
>> Notice that Ken said: "We adopted a distribution, marketing and
>> pricing profile that was
>> decidedly NOT traditional "high end".
>
Barry chants the mantra of any sensible human when in conversation
with Mr. Kruger------------>
>Liar, liar, liar.
>>
Mr. Kruger then demonstrates why Barry must sound the sonorous song
"liar! Liar! Liar!"------------>
>> I interpret this to mean that NHT decided not to pander to the
>> traditional customs and practices of high end audio marketplace.
Mr. Kruger, please confine yourself to what Ken wrote. Your
interpretation is a direct and forced misrepresentation of what Ken
said. Kantor was very clear. They chose a different distribution
pattern because they wished to reach more customers.
Ken's response fairly well supports Barry's argument that
distribution pattern and dealer exclusivity are the defining
characteristics for determining "high end" status.
>>
>> >Dealer margins and, especially, distribution exclusivity define
>> that segment.
>>
>> I don't think so. I think that buyer opinion and buying habits define
>> which segment a product falls into.
You may think so, but Ken's response suggests otherwise, as
does common business practice and opinion.
In virtually every market segment I know of, true "luxury"
goods follow different distribution patterns than other products, even
those products which equal or surpass some in the luxury segment. The
retail outlet determines the status of the product, not the consumer.
I can't think right now of an exception to this, though I'm sure there
must be one somewhere.
Your thread actually asked (implied) a different meaning. I
read it, as I believe many others read it, as asking whether NHT
products were as good or better as any high end product, as is if
asking if NHT products deserved to be thought of among the best in the
industry.
>
>>
>> NHT may not achieved high end status using traditional means, but
>> that does not mean that they are not widely perceived to be high end.
>> I'm sure that if my straw pole on RAO were expanded, the outcome
>> percentage-wise would remain against your viewpoint.
Except that people would be voting on a different subject.
They would be voting, as we all did, on the perceived quality of the
product, which is something else entirely.
The only NHT products thought of as high end are the 3.3
(which has restricted distribution), the 2.9 (I believe the same
obtains) and marginally the 2.5. The rest of the line is *not* high
end, though those speakers are terrific products at their price
points.
Ed
Gene Steinberg
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
>to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
>credibility, but are intentionally saying something else. The
>sentence I pointed out was taken from Kantor's own words, posted
>immediately above, and quoted from a post by you.
The rules of the Resistance are different: To them, anyone who has a
different opinion must be a liar.
Fear3000
Barry Rothman wrote to Krufish:
>>Liar, liar, liar.
>Let's go back to the basics. To prove that someone is lying, you have
>to prove that they know some other contradictory fact and give it
>credibility, but are intentionally saying something else.
LOL!!!
How's this for Proof of Lying, as you have just defined it?
Subject: Re: Speaker wire upgrade, plese help!
From: fear...@aol.com (Fear3000)
Date: 5/31/99 7:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <19990531074753...@ng-fu1.aol.com>
>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>Here is one indication of wire profit margins that we've seen before,
>and you seem to be ignoring (intentionally)
>http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm
>"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer.
>At Ken Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif.,
>Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross
>profit."
[something tells me we've been here before]
Kruger, you lying piece of shit! You know full well that the figures you posted
are meaningless and incorrect, yet you still insist on trying to spin the same,
faded yarn. Do you think we all forgot the fiasco you and Wig Steinborg faced
last time you posted the same drivel?
Let me refresh your recollection:
-----start quote------
You wrote:
Let's see what that an authoritative and reliable financial
magazine, Forbes has to say about this:
Check out http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214066a.htm .
"Cables are to a stereo store what undercoating is to a car dealer. At Ken
Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif., Monster accounts
for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross profit."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which I responded:
>The figures seem very "odd" to me, so I constructed a basic model
>based on the constraints provided by the author.
>[the same article also said:]
>"Monster's cables typically yield a 45% gross margin, while the
>more visible audio and video components hover around 30%. "
>So...if we assume gross profit of $1M, cables then [per the article] would
>bring in $300,000 profit. If each cable unit has a median retail price of $75
>[$33.75 profit at 45%], then the store sold 8889 units of cable that year.
>Now lets look at A/V sales which account for $700,000 [70%] of the
>gross profit and 98% of sales. If each component has a median price
>of $400, then each unit sold would add $120 [30%] to the gross profit.
>Thus [700,000 /120] 5833 A/V units were sold. If we do the simple
>math [8889x$75 + 5833x400] we get a gross sales figure of ~$3,000,000
>for the year. Looking back at the article, 2% of sales amounted
>to $300,000 profit, meaning gross sales were $15,000,000!!!
>How does$3M=$15M???
_______________________________________________
>I also worked out a different senerio, since the phrase
>"volume sales" ,as used in Forbes, is rather "ambiguous".
>OTOH if we assume that 2% figure refered to the number of untits
>sold relative to the gross profit, then A/V gear [98% of unit sales]
>would bring in ~$175,000,000 [435,512 units x $400/unit]
>If sales of $175 Million resulted in $700,000 _gross_ profit [meaning the
>margin was 0.4% and NOT 30%] which is of course impossible per
>the very same article.
-----end quote--------
As if this was not enough, you later retracted your position by writing:
"Looking back, I think that I agree with Fear3000's central point:
the profit margins cited in that article, which seem to have
originated with dealer(s) who sell Monster Cable, are hard to believe."
Can you see what *you* wrote? "....THE PROFIT MARGINS...ARE HARD TO BELIEVE."
And now, a couple of months later, you bring up the same bullshit as if nothing
ever happend, including you admitting that the figures are worthless? You're
scum, pure and simple!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
George M. Middius
> Sorry, didn't mean to wake you.
You can run, but you can't hide.
George M. Middius