[Dave]

I picked up a pair of NHT Super Zeroes about six months ago for a very
reasonable price. I had read the glowing stereophile review of these tiny
5" x 9" micro-speakers which likened their sound to loudspeakers costing
upwards of eight thousand dollars, and was pleased with the prospect of
bringing something into the livingroom which a) cost next to nothing and b)
sounded good and which was c) unobtrusive enough to please my
aesthetically-minded significant other. In fact she was ecstatic as I
lugged the Klipsch Cornwalls down the hallway even going so far as to offer
to help. The speakers are being driven with an old beast of an amp, a
Technics SU-8099 rated at 120wpc RMS. I've been very pleased with the
amplifier with other speakers, it's very neutral sounding and (I thought)
drove the horn speakers quite well, not sounding excessively bright or edgy
as horn speakers are wont to do.

When I first hooked up the speakers (with a powered Velodyne subwoofer), I
was astounded at the absolute clarity of the upper midrange, especially on
piano. From these little computer-speaker-looking boxes! I listen to a lot
of female vocalists and piano and these speakers are designed to reproduce
this range admirably. However, now that the honeymoon is over, I am finding
them extremely bright. I've never owned a pair of speakers I'd describe as
bright although I've read about it enough on this forum and others.
Extended listening periods are "fatiguing", another term I've thankfully
avoided personal experience with. I've read that this excessive brightness
is a trademark of Ken Kantor and NHT, and I wonder about others'
experiences.

I recently parted with a relatively low-power tube amp, in part because
these speakers are only 86 dB/w/m and 20 wpc just wasn't going to do
anything for them, but I am wondering about whether or not pairing a "warm"
amp with these speakers is going to help. Or is it that the bright sound is
just something you like or you don't like? I have tried running the NHT's
full-range, using the integrated crossover of a Velodyne sub, and with an
active analog crossover. None of these options changed the sound
appreciably.

I've also seen reference to some wizardry by Bob Carver whereby he was able
to make a SS amp sound "tubey", perhaps with the addition of a resistor
between the amp and speakers?

Dave

[Steven Sullivan]

Dave wrote:
I picked up a pair of NHT Super Zeroes about six months ago for a very
reasonable price. I had read the glowing stereophile review of these tiny
5" x 9" micro-speakers which likened their sound to loudspeakers costing
upwards of eight thousand dollars, and was pleased with the prospect of
bringing something into the livingroom which a) cost next to nothing and b)
sounded good and which was c) unobtrusive enough to please my
aesthetically-minded significant other. In fact she was ecstatic as I
lugged the Klipsch Cornwalls down the hallway even going so far as to offer
to help. The speakers are being driven with an old beast of an amp, a
Technics SU-8099 rated at 120wpc RMS. I've been very pleased with the
amplifier with other speakers, it's very neutral sounding and (I thought)
drove the horn speakers quite well, not sounding excessively bright or edgy
as horn speakers are wont to do.

When I first hooked up the speakers (with a powered Velodyne subwoofer), I
was astounded at the absolute clarity of the upper midrange, especially on
piano. From these little computer-speaker-looking boxes! I listen to a lot
of female vocalists and piano and these speakers are designed to reproduce
this range admirably. However, now that the honeymoon is over, I am finding
them extremely bright. I've never owned a pair of speakers I'd describe as
bright although I've read about it enough on this forum and others.
Extended listening periods are "fatiguing", another term I've thankfully
avoided personal experience with. I've read that this excessive brightness
is a trademark of Ken Kantor and NHT, and I wonder about others'
experiences.

If the speakers themselves are 'bright', or (as may actually be the case; does anhyone have a
good set of anaechoic measurements for the SuperZeros?) the geometry of room/listener produces
a 'bright' sound at the listening position, the best bet is to apply room treatment and DSP
'room correction', rather than getting a new amp. Any amp 'warm' enough to
tamp down a 'bright' speaker, must have a rather poor frequency response.




--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[bob]

My first suggestion would be to try nudging the treble control on your
amp down a bit. Does it sound better? If so, consider investing in a
decent equalizer that will let you adjust things more precisely to
your liking.

Also, what's the room look like? I realize that formal room treatment
is not going to sit well with the SO. But a plush rug on the floor,
some heavy drapes, maybe a little more upholstery (or more
strategically placed upholstery) might help.

The one thing that won't help you is a new solid-state amp. A tube amp
might help, if you can afford one powerful enough for your speakers,
but it's only going to help because it's doing what an equalizer can
do much better--roll off the highs.

bob

[jwvm]

On Oct 14, 6:21*pm, "Dave" wrote:

snip

When I first hooked up the speakers (with a powered Velodyne subwoofer), I
was astounded at the absolute clarity of the upper midrange, especially on
piano. *From these little computer-speaker-looking boxes! *I listen to a lot
of female vocalists and piano and these speakers are designed to reproduce
this range admirably. *However, now that the honeymoon is over, I am finding
them extremely bright. *I've never owned a pair of speakers I'd describe as
bright although I've read about it enough on this forum and others.
Extended listening periods are "fatiguing", another term I've thankfully
avoided personal experience with. *I've read that this excessive brightness
is a trademark of Ken Kantor and NHT, and I wonder about others'
experiences.

Have you tried reducing the treble a bit?


I recently parted with a relatively low-power tube amp, in part because
these speakers are only 86 dB/w/m and 20 wpc just wasn't going to do
anything for them, but I am wondering about whether or not pairing a "warm"
amp with these speakers is going to help. *Or is it that the bright sound is
just something you like or you don't like? *I have tried running the NHT's
full-range, using the integrated crossover of a Velodyne sub, and with an
active analog crossover. *None of these options changed the sound
appreciably.

I've also seen reference to some wizardry by Bob Carver whereby he was able
to make a SS amp sound "tubey", perhaps with the addition of a resistor
between the amp and speakers?

Dave

Steven's room-treatment suggestion is well worth considering. You
might want to read some suggestions by Ethan Winer at his website:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

Changing amplifiers to correct frequency response problems sounds like
a very inefficient approach here. You also should be wary of
amplifiers that provide "warmth" or similar effects which often imply
soft clipping. Such an approach may be good for electric guitars but
many listeners would not find the end results pleasing on other types
of recordings.

[Peter Wieck]

Please note the snippages (done for maximum and possibly unfair
effect) and the interpolations.

On Oct 14, 6:21*pm, "Dave" wrote:

*I had read the glowing {{stereophile}} review of these tiny
5" x 9" micro-speakers which likened their sound to loudspeakers costing
upwards of eight thousand dollars snip *

What you have is essentially two tweeters in a box. Or, at best, a
tweeter and upper-upper midrange. It's gonna sound bright. It can't
help it.

Klipsch Cornwalls *

Not so bad speakers. Horns tend to be a bit directional, but otherwise
not so bad. And at least reasonably full-range. Big.

Technics SU-8099 rated at 120wpc RMS.

NOTE: Within normal operating range, the *amp* should not affect the
sound. Around the margins (at/near clipping) amps will sound different
one-from-another depending on lots of factors, but within normal
operating range, not so much.

*However, now that the honeymoon is over, I am finding
them extremely bright. *

Yep. See "gonna be bright" above.

*I have tried running the NHT's
full-range, using the integrated crossover of a Velodyne sub, and with an
active analog crossover. *None of these options changed the sound
appreciably.

Nope. Can't get much midrange out of a sub-woofer and two tweeters...
And it is not so much that the speakers are "bright" as the entire
middle is missing leaving you with _only_ the bright. And, sadly, that
is about the size of it, pun intended.

With all due respect to NHT I will offer, with some humor, the the
designers, now 20+ years after the company started have lost their
upper range of hearing and so are compensating by designing mosquito
speakers. That Stereophile should be taken in by it is more-or-less
typical of that aspect of the industry.

Speakers are about moving air. The lower the frequency, the more air
that needs to be moved. Tiny little drivers cannot move that kind of
air without heroic measures - and horns are one way of achieving such
measures (your Cornwalls) - but conventional cone drivers are not. You
can muddy the waters (de-bright the speakers) using an equalizer, a
tube amp driven to clipping or other silly measures, but you cannot
add back the vast midrange that is missing, will continue to be
missing and cannot be 'added' with the configuration you have. All you
can do is skew the bass curve such that it favors the midrange, skew
the treble curve so that it favors the midrange - and - well, you get
the picture.

I keep two sub/sat systems, a Revox Piccolo

http://www.hifi.nl/markt/images/6016...O_System_o.jpg

and an AR Athena system (made for maybe a week before they were
pillaged by Jensen). Both of them have substantial mid-range speakers
(6") - so do not suffer from the brightness syndrome - much. But the
satellite box is therefore some taller than what you describe, and
considerably wider. About 8 x 12 vs. 5 x 9. Still small. The subwoofer
is a 16" cube in the case of the Revox, and a 14 x 18 x 10 box for the
AR.

In any case, you may be dragging those Cornwalls back after all, as
you just *won't* get what you want from your present set-up. Or
conceal a couple of midrange speakers.... Heroic measures.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Dave]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...

What you have is essentially two tweeters in a box. Or, at best, a
tweeter and upper-upper midrange. It's gonna sound bright. It can't
help it.


Nope. Can't get much midrange out of a sub-woofer and two tweeters...
And it is not so much that the speakers are "bright" as the entire
middle is missing leaving you with _only_ the bright. And, sadly, that
is about the size of it, pun intended.

The response of the super zeroes starts to roll of at ~150Hz, reaching -6dB
at 88Hz. Is it unreasonable to expect my subwoofer, which can cross over as
high as 140Hz, to pick up the slack on the midrange? Of course this is in
an anechoic chamber, which my livingroom is certainly NOT.

I had a look at the Ethan Winer acoustic treatments site, and I'd like to
experiment with room treatments, but the room just isn't built to
accomodate... A majority of the space on two walls is windows, another wall
is a large mirror above a fireplace, and there is art on most of the
remaining walls.

Wonder how she'd feel about 4" rigid yellow fiberglass insulation on the
whole ceiling? Probably even more unhappy than seeing the Cornwalls moving
back down the hallway into the room...

[Steven Sullivan]

Dave wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...

What you have is essentially two tweeters in a box. Or, at best, a
tweeter and upper-upper midrange. It's gonna sound bright. It can't
help it.


Nope. Can't get much midrange out of a sub-woofer and two tweeters...
And it is not so much that the speakers are "bright" as the entire
middle is missing leaving you with _only_ the bright. And, sadly, that
is about the size of it, pun intended.

The response of the super zeroes starts to roll of at ~150Hz, reaching -6dB
at 88Hz. Is it unreasonable to expect my subwoofer, which can cross over as
high as 140Hz, to pick up the slack on the midrange? Of course this is in
an anechoic chamber, which my livingroom is certainly NOT.


With a crossover that high, you stand a good chance of hearing where the sub
is, rather than it being 'invisible'. If so, experiment with lower crossovers
and see how much 'mid suckout' occurs. You might get lucky.


I had a look at the Ethan Winer acoustic treatments site, and I'd like to
experiment with room treatments, but the room just isn't built to
accomodate... A majority of the space on two walls is windows, another wall
is a large mirror above a fireplace, and there is art on most of the
remaining walls.

But there's still the option of EQ...and that's still a more sensible solution than using an
amp as an crude equalizer.

If you want to get fancier than just tone controls, you could either investigate an outboard
DSP EQ unit, or invest in a modern AV receiver -- particularly one with Audyssey EQ.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave" wrote in message


I picked up a pair of NHT Super Zeroes about six months
ago for a very reasonable price.

I've owned a pair for at least a decade. I don't think their price ever was
unreasonable, even when new and bought for MRP. I think you can still pay
more for less, despite the tremendous improvements in speaker
price/performance in the past 15 years.

My SZs get trotted in and out of my speaker closet, as the need comes and
goes. I also have a pair of S1s, a pair of 2.5is, and an A10 system. So yes,
I went through a NHT phase for about 5 years, ending about 5 years ago.
But I'm not soured on them.

I had read the glowing
stereophile review of these tiny 5" x 9" micro-speakers
which likened their sound to loudspeakers costing upwards
of eight thousand dollars,

Can we all say hyperbole? ;-)

and was pleased with the
prospect of bringing something into the livingroom which
a) cost next to nothing and b) sounded good and which was
c) unobtrusive enough to please my aesthetically-minded
significant other.

I would characterize SZs as being interesting and potentially still useful
artifacts of a by-gone era.

On the up side SZs are pretty smooth, and obviously very tiny. Their
impedance is pretty high and relatively consistent so they are easy on amps,
and tend to protect themselves from excess power by not accepting it.

On the down side SZs have no real bass. They do have a mild peak in the
upper bass which is apparently there to try to add the perception of sonic
balance.

Because SZs are so physically small, they have almost no directivity
control. Therefore, they are very, very dependent on room placement and the
room in general. They are inefficient, and don't seem to have a lot of
actual power handling capacity.

In fact she was ecstatic as I lugged
the Klipsch Cornwalls down the hallway even going so far
as to offer to help.

Cornwalls and SZs are so different as comparing them is almost like an
excluded-middle discussion.

The speakers are being driven with
an old beast of an amp, a Technics SU-8099 rated at
120wpc RMS. I've been very pleased with the amplifier
with other speakers, it's very neutral sounding and (I
thought) drove the horn speakers quite well, not sounding
excessively bright or edgy as horn speakers are wont to
do.

Well, you're judging horns by Cornwalls, right? Just about any speaker from
that era has one sonic failing or another, either dull or edgy. A real
ear-opener would be a comparison with a modern SOTA horn-loaded system.
There has been about a half-century of technical progress since the
Cornwalls were first sold. BTW, it has been a very interesting half-century.
;-)

When I first hooked up the speakers (with a powered
Velodyne subwoofer), I was astounded at the absolute
clarity of the upper midrange, especially on piano.

Well, SZs compared to Cornwalls...

From these little computer-speaker-looking boxes!

The SZ drivers were pretty good in their day. Euro tweeter and Japanese
clone of a Euro mid-bass driver, if memory serves. Clever, non-trivial
crossover.

I listen to
a lot of female vocalists and piano and these speakers
are designed to reproduce this range admirably.

Well yes, female vocalist means you want smooth midrange but no real bass
required.

However,
now that the honeymoon is over, I am finding them
extremely bright.

(1) Look at speaker placement. SZ's are very dependent on the room because
they have about as little directivity control as any serious audio speaker
on the market not made by Bose.

(2) Look relative placement w/r/t to the subwoofer and also at the crossover
with the subwoofer. Close is good. Very close.

I've never owned a pair of speakers
I'd describe as bright although I've read about it enough
on this forum and others.

The SZ's are pretty smooth, but they have no real bass. There are actually
2 ways for a speaker to be bright, A is to have raised treble, and B is to
have dropping bass. SZs are more B than A. BTW, did I mention the room?

The SZ's and the Cornwalls are just about as extremely different as serious
Hi Fi speakers can get. The Cornwalls have very well-defined directivity
due to the large bass driver and the horns. The SZ's are the exact opposite.
The small drivers in the small cabinet guarantee that they are about as
omnidirectional as speakers can get without being specifically designed to
be omnidirectional.

Extended listening periods are
"fatiguing", another term I've thankfully avoided
personal experience with. I've read that this excessive
brightness is a trademark of Ken Kantor and NHT, and I
wonder about others' experiences.

IMO Ken knows how to design speakers, and NHT's are as rule good-sounding
speakers. But SZs are children of the mid-90s, which means that they ave
solid response in the upper ranges.

A really small speaker has no choice - it either has good response at higher
frequencies or it has no response at all because it can't possibly do deep
bass without heroics.

There's no way that you can separate speakers from the rooms they are in,
and there is no way that the wrong speaker for the room is going to sound
good right out of the box.

I recently parted with a relatively low-power tube amp,
in part because these speakers are only 86 dB/w/m and 20
wpc just wasn't going to do anything for them, but I am
wondering about whether or not pairing a "warm" amp with
these speakers is going to help.

To me, tubed amps are often random equalizers. Random, because their actual
equalization effect is not engineered for the specific application.

Because of their typically high output impedance, tube amp frequency
response is strongly altered by the impedance curve of the speakers they
drive. This means that speakers with low and variable impedance curves will
have a stronger "tube amp warmth" effect than speakers with high and less
variable impedance curves.

The bad news for tubed amp fans is that the SZ impedance curve is neither
very low nor extremely variable.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...04/index9.html

Or is it that the
bright sound is just something you like or you don't
like?

It's about the speaker-room interface. If you told me about hardwood floors
and sparse furnishings, I would not be the least bit surprised. But that's
not the only way to get yourself into trouble with SZs. Put them at the
junction of the ceiling and the wall, or worse yet in a ceiling corner, and
they probably won't be bright, they may even be boomy and/or have tubby
bass.

I have tried running the NHT's full-range, using
the integrated crossover of a Velodyne sub, and with an
active analog crossover. None of these options changed
the sound appreciably.

SZ's are good speakers to feed through an appropriate high pass filter,
because of their non-existent deep bass response and their obvious
power-handling limitations. Appropriate = 140 Hz.

[Peter Wieck]

On Oct 15, 12:54*pm, "Dave" wrote:

The response of the super zeroes starts to roll of at ~150Hz, reaching -6dB
at 88Hz. *Is it unreasonable to expect my subwoofer, which can cross over as
high as 140Hz, to pick up the slack on the midrange? *Of course this is in
an anechoic chamber, which my livingroom is certainly NOT.

Wonder how she'd feel about 4" rigid yellow fiberglass insulation on the
whole ceiling? *Probably even more unhappy than seeing the Cornwalls moving
back down the hallway into the room...

This is the problem. You have your subwoofer, which *at the extremes*
can cross over at 140hz. You have your satellites (and that is what
they are, despite any rumors or representations to the contrary) that
are pretty much useless (from the published curves) below 150hz.

So, singing voice:

The following vocal range classifications are typically used in
classical music (from highest to lowest):

Soprano (240 - 1170 Hz)
Mezzo-soprano (220 - 900 Hz)
Contralto (130 - 700 Hz)
Tenor (130 - 440 Hz)
Baritone (110 - 350 Hz)
Bass (80 - 330 Hz)

Speaking voice:

Typical adult male: 85 to 155 Hz
Typical adult female: 165 to 255 Hz."

Lots of subtlies (coloration) missing, in those frequencies that "fill
out" musical sound. Leaving the heavy bass and bright trebles.

It is that hole in the middle that is causing you distress, not the
excess at either end. That may not be excessive at all, just sounding
so due to the lack. And you won't fill the hole with what you have
effectively. *ESPECIALLY* as you know better based on your history
with the Klipsch speakers. Those who do not know better, those with
poor upper-range hearing and so forth may be as pleased as the
proverbial purple pig with your set-up.

Don't get me started on tiny little bass drivers (or 15" blobs,
either).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave" wrote in message


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...

What you have is essentially two tweeters in a box. Or,
at best, a tweeter and upper-upper midrange. It's gonna
sound bright. It can't help it.

A little hyperbole?

The 4 inch lower range drivers are not full woofers, but they do cover from
the mid-bass on up.

Nope. Can't get much midrange out of a sub-woofer and
two tweeters... And it is not so much that the speakers
are "bright" as the entire middle is missing leaving you
with _only_ the bright. And, sadly, that is about the
size of it, pun intended.

Postion SZs in a upper corner or at the junction of the wall and the ceiling
and they will even sound a little tubby, as in too much upper bass.

The response of the super zeroes starts to roll of at
~150Hz, reaching -6dB at 88Hz.

The response also peaks around 150 Hz.

Is it unreasonable to
expect my subwoofer, which can cross over as high as
140Hz, to pick up the slack on the midrange?

Probably not. However, with a 140 Hz crossover, you have to keep the
subwoofer and satellites pretty close together if you want a nicely blended
bass image.

Of course this is in an anechoic chamber, which my living room is
certainly NOT.

Because SZs are so physically small, they have almost no directivity
control. Therefore, they are very, very dependent on room placement and the
room in general.

Wonder how she'd feel about 4" rigid yellow fiberglass
insulation on the whole ceiling?

You're basically talking an acoustical tile drop ceiling, and Armstrong has
some products with a decorative surface. Under $5 a square foot, if you
put it up yourself.

[Dave]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message


I listen to
a lot of female vocalists and piano and these speakers
are designed to reproduce this range admirably.

Well yes, female vocalist means you want smooth midrange but no real bass
required.


Qualifier: female vocalists accompanying jazz trios/quartets/quintets, etc.
often with string bass. So, real bass is required.


However,
now that the honeymoon is over, I am finding them
extremely bright.

(1) Look at speaker placement. SZ's are very dependent on the room
because
they have about as little directivity control as any serious audio speaker
on the market not made by Bose.

(2) Look relative placement w/r/t to the subwoofer and also at the
crossover
with the subwoofer. Close is good. Very close.


I am open to moving them around somewhat. I moved the sub around a fair bit
when I got it as I had heard that the room was likely to have a sweet spot
or two for the sub and that sub placement would make a big difference.
Unfortunately the location of the sub is such that close placement of the
SZs would make for an awkward listening position and unusual aesthetics.
Right now, the sound is relatively good at several listening locations, but
there is one particlar corner where the bass is enormously accentuated.


The SZ's are pretty smooth, but they have no real bass. There are
actually
2 ways for a speaker to be bright, A is to have raised treble, and B is to
have dropping bass. SZs are more B than A. BTW, did I mention the room?


There's no way that you can separate speakers from the rooms they are in,
and there is no way that the wrong speaker for the room is going to sound
good right out of the box.


I am starting to feel that a) the SZ's are a bad match for the room and b)
the room in general is going to be a tough nut to crack as far as
elimination of standing waves and room modes no matter what I do... your
guess as to hardwood floors and sparse furnishings is accurate although
there are some thick-pile area rugs and the furniture style is overstuffed
cloth-covered. The room is nearly square, about 18'x 20' with coved 9'
ceiling. the speakers are about 3' out from the back and sides of the room,
the sub is roughly between them and forward of the SZ's by about 2'.


To me, tubed amps are often random equalizers. Random, because their
actual
equalization effect is not engineered for the specific application.


I am considering DSP EQ. Do you have an opinion? I don't see how it will
fix such a bad room. Given the reflectivity of the majority of the room's
surfaces, getting rid of peaks and dips at one location is unlikely to have
an identical effect at another... although I am quite sure there is much to
the digital wizardry of DSP which I do not comprehend...


It's about the speaker-room interface. If you told me about hardwood
floors
and sparse furnishings, I would not be the least bit surprised. But that's
not the only way to get yourself into trouble with SZs. Put them at the
junction of the ceiling and the wall, or worse yet in a ceiling corner,
and
they probably won't be bright, they may even be boomy and/or have tubby
bass.


What's the BEST location for them? I've described the present location and
they are up on stands at seated ear level. Would I be much better off with
a full-range loudspeaker in this room, or a full-range plus the subwoofer?
The Cornwalls sounded good, but in a very limited area, i.e. they seem to
put out about a 30-degree cone of sound and if you're outside it, the image
and soundstaging just don't happen. when you move into the adjacent
diningroom it's almost like portions of the spectrum disappear.


SZ's are good speakers to feed through an appropriate high pass filter,
because of their non-existent deep bass response and their obvious
power-handling limitations. Appropriate = 140 Hz.


I haven't done any measurements, but found that they sound better, at least
to my ear, when run full-range.

Thank you very much for your informative replies.

Dave

[Walt]

Dave wrote:
I've read that this excessive brightness
is a trademark of Ken Kantor and NHT, and I wonder about others'
experiences.

Every NHT speaker I've ever listened to was screechy and unpleasant,
especially with classical music. They're like fingernails on a
blackboard to me.

YMMV, but I doubt you'll improve things by changing out the amp.

//Walt

[Peter Wieck]

Dave:

I am starting over on this one, with two assumptions - one relating to
you, and one a fully acknowledged personal opinion:

a) You would really like this configuration to work.
b) There is no such thing as a truly 'bad' room.

A few technical points with questions first:

1. Standing waves and nodes: Have you experienced these directly and
specifically, or is it something that you have "heard-tell of"?
Standing waves are caused by either parallel surfaces or domed/
barreled ceilings in conjunction with nearby planar surfaces at the
focus-point of the dome or barrel (and, of course, curved niches can
cause the same effect). For them to happen anyway takes hard, parallel
surfaces at the proper reflection points. So even a simple carpet or
area rug will serve to break them up. Or a painting in the right
place. Or window curtains - you get the idea - really simple stuff.
Putting in an acoustical ceiling is, in a word, nuts.

2. Your satellites should be _against_ a wall, not standing out from
it if you want to get any sort of lower-midrange at all out of them.
If I read your post correctly, you have them standing away from the
walls and not near any corners or edges. Keep in mind that the more
you put them to an edge (between wall and floor or wall and ceiling)
the more that those surfaces act as a horn. The more you put it at a
corner, and then an adge, the horn becomes even narrower,
concentrating the sound even more. So, you could experiment by
bringing the speakers closer to a corner/closer to an edge, closer to
both to see if you hit a spot where the limited lower-midrange is
actually enhanced sufficiently to meet your needs without additional
heroics or overpowering you with the treble. Do the same thing with
the subwoofer. You can really "bring up" the bass by placement, if you
think of the geometric center of floor as the 'least bass' position
and a floor corner the 'most'.

Now, we get into opinion and why 'no bad rooms'.

Back in the Day (60s & 70s) Acoustic Research did a little brochure
for their customers on Speaker Placement. This was well before "high-
end" single-sweet-spot systems became popular, and speaker placement
was all about creating a listening *stage* for a listening *area*.
Note also that AR pretty much always was into multiple-driver, full-
range speakers, and their line limited from the low-end up (based on
driver size) while always paying attention to the midrange and highs.

Cutting to the chase, they felt that the ideal speaker placement for
the average room (3X by 4X by 2.6X being 9 x 12 x 8 or 12 x 16 x 10)
with average furnishings and average penetrations (windows and doors)
was to have the speakers at just-off (by +/-~1 woofer diameter) the
1/2 and 1/3 points of the long wall with the lower edge of the woofer
at least 2 x its diameter above the floor or below the ceiling or away
from any corner. They also wanted the speakers against the wall (an
exception to this, the 10pi came much later). In other words, they
eschewed symmetry. As rooms got larger, they grudgingly allowed
placement on the shorter of the two walls, but in the same
asymmetrical manner.

You might try along these lines. First, your satellites have a dome
tweeter and a very shallow cone upper midrange. So, they are pretty
wide-dispersion. Putting them against the wall will help concentrate
the throw 'forward' and thereby help to locate them and thus the
'stage' they present. In a small way, this will also reduce required
amplifier power as you will perceive more sound coming from them if
they are against a wall.

Then, play around with your bass, treble and crossover (even balance)
controls to see if you can sweeten it up and bring back some of that
lower-midrange drop-out.

Now, 80% of what I wrote above is useless if you already have them
against a wall.

Lastly: now that you have 'the bug' on satellites, you might look
around for a slightly larger 'full range' speaker to use as your
satellites. Still small, still SO-friendly as compared to the
Cornwalls, but more capable of lower-midrange reproduction. The NHTs
can always go in a tiny room somewhere - they would be just fine in
that environment.

And, even if the fundamental frequencies for the your female voices
are all above 150hz, the harmonics extend in both directions such that
if they are not available the sound will be discolored. Kinda like the
differences between middle A on a violin string or piano or middle A
as a sine-wave.

Writing for myself, I have used the "AR method" for years with
speakers from many different manufactures of many different types from
conventional drivers to electrostatics to planar drivers. I find that
it works. I find also that when done-right, I can pick out individual
instruments and 'point' to them when listening to a well-made
recording (or think I can anyway - comes to the same thing). Further,
I find that there is no single 'sweet-spot' but more an 'audience
area' which makes the experience one that can be shared or one that
does not 'require active participation' on my part. I can lie on the
couch, sit in a chair, watch the fire (90 degrees to the speakers) and
still enjoy the ambience.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I am starting to feel that a) the SZ's are a bad match
for the room

I agree on the grounds that the room is pretty reverberent and the SZs lack
directionality which is key for good sound in a reverberent room.

and b) the room in general is going to be a
tough nut to crack as far as elimination of standing
waves and room modes no matter what I do...

I you used the Cornwalls in this room, you were closer to an optimal
solution because they are far more directional than the SZs.

your guess as
to hardwood floors and sparse furnishings is accurate
although there are some thick-pile area rugs and the
furniture style is overstuffed cloth-covered.

From an appearance standpoint, I like that sort of decor. From a SQ
standpoint, it is problematical.

The room
is nearly square, about 18'x 20' with coved 9' ceiling.
the speakers are about 3' out from the back and sides of
the room, the sub is roughly between them and forward of
the SZ's by about 2'.

The SZs need to be within maybe 3'-5' of the sub to have anything like good
blending through the crossover region.

To me, tubed amps are often random equalizers. Random,
because their actual
equalization effect is not engineered for the specific
application.

I am considering DSP EQ. Do you have an opinion?

Yes, its the best equalization option, but if you really want good sound,
you'll work over the room acoustics situation first.

I don't see how it will fix such a bad room.

It won't fix it, but it may mitigate it somewhat.

Given the
reflectivity of the majority of the room's surfaces,
getting rid of peaks and dips at one location is unlikely
to have an identical effect at another...

Don't even go down that road. If you attempt to use eq, just go for better
sonic balance.

although I am
quite sure there is much to the digital wizardry of DSP
which I do not comprehend...

At this point you don't need wizardry, you need meat and potatoes. ;-)

It's about the speaker-room interface. If you told me
about hardwood floors
and sparse furnishings, I would not be the least bit
surprised. But that's not the only way to get yourself
into trouble with SZs. Put them at the junction of the
ceiling and the wall, or worse yet in a ceiling corner,
and
they probably won't be bright, they may even be boomy
and/or have tubby bass.

What's the BEST location for them?

Within a few feet of the sub. In your context, compromise the position of
the sub to get better results with the SZs.

I've described the
present location and they are up on stands at seated ear
level. Would I be much better off with a full-range
loudspeaker in this room, or a full-range plus the
subwoofer?

There's nothing wrong with subs mixed with appropriate speakers. In a
highly-reverberent room I'd first choose upper-range speakers that have lots
of directivity control, even some of the better, smoother choices from the
pro sound market.

For example, I might try something like EV ZX1, or ZX5-60 SR speakers with
a sub and a parametric equalizer to adjust over-all balance and smooth out
the crossover to the sub. That will give you good directivity control,
reasonable smoothness, tons of dynamic range and good overall balance.

Think of ZX5-60s as Cornwalls for the 21st century. ;-) Seriously, they are
almost as efficient and have not that much worse bass extension with
equalization, which they can take very easily due their monumental dynamic
range. They are far smoother and have far more dynamic range. A high
performance sub to extend system response down to 20-30 Hz is a good
match. They are far smaller than Cornwalls and therefore might have more
WAF. As I recall they displace about the same volume and have about the
same weight as AR3s. Their form factor is a little more squat and they are
socketed for professional speaker stands.

Cornwall: 35.75" H (90.81cm) x 25.31" W (64.29cm) x 15.5" D (39.37cm), 98
pounds.

ZX-5: 69.2 x 44.6 x 41.1 cm (27.24" x 17.56" x 16.18") , 49.5 pounds

I've had ZX-5 60s in my rather reverberent living room and equed them to
suit with good results.

The Cornwalls sounded good, but in a very
limited area, i.e. they seem to put out about a 30-degree
cone of sound and if you're outside it, the image and
soundstaging just don't happen.

Believe it or not, that may be as good as you'll ever get in terms of
coverage.

when you move into the
adjacent diningroom it's almost like portions of the
spectrum disappear.

You were expecting better?

I would never expect good sound from speakers anywhere, except the room they
are in.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
Please note the snippages (done for maximum and possibly unfair
effect) and the interpolations.

On Oct 14, 6:21?pm, "Dave" wrote:

?I had read the glowing {{stereophile}} review of these tiny
5" x 9" micro-speakers which likened their sound to loudspeakers costing
upwards of eight thousand dollars snip ?

What you have is essentially two tweeters in a box. Or, at best, a
tweeter and upper-upper midrange. It's gonna sound bright. It can't
help it.

'Bright' due to truly accentuated treble, or simply due to 'flat' treble but lack
of bass? Seems to it also depends on how they are designed and 'voiced'. It's certainly
possibly to create a 'dull' minimonitor -- or one that is more or less flat (not bright)
within the treble range. And where the listener sits has got to have an effect too.

Which is why I asked whether anyone has any specs of bench test data
on the SuperZeroes.

Ah, here we go:

http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...04/index8.html

NHT SuperZero: two-way, acoustic-suspension minimonitor.
Drive-units: 4.5" paper-cone woofer, 1" soft-dome tweeter.
Frequency response: 85Hz-25kHz, ?3dB.
Crossover frequency & slopes: 2.2kHz, 6 and 12dB/octave.
Impedance: 8 ohms nominal, 7.5 ohms minimum.
Sensitivity: 86dB/W/m.
Power handling: 100W maximum, 15W minimum.

bench data:
http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...04/index9.html

Corey Greenberg loved 'em. John Atkinson attributed a 'forward balance' to them with
'catastrophically lightweight bass' but also notes: "this curve is much smoother
than I would have expected from a pair of speakers in this price region, particularly in the
treble" and further that "sitting below the speaker tends to compensate for the on-axis
forwardness in the upper midrange/low treble. "

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Steven Sullivan]

Walt wrote:
Dave wrote:
I've read that this excessive brightness
is a trademark of Ken Kantor and NHT, and I wonder about others'
experiences.

Every NHT speaker I've ever listened to was screechy and unpleasant,
especially with classical music. They're like fingernails on a
blackboard to me.

I currently use SuperOnes (five of them, when in surround mode),
and they sound fine on classical music I play -- everything from Gregorian Chant to
Xenakis. It helps to have a thick area rug rather than , say, a wooden
floor, in front of them. The room is large with no curtains, but also has some
thickly-upholstered furniture. And I use digital room correction.

I've used them in a half dozen different rooms and find, not surprisingly, that speaker
placement and the acoustic properties of the room have a huge impact on the sound.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Arny Krueger]

"Walt" wrote in message


Dave wrote:

I've read that this excessive brightness
is a trademark of Ken Kantor and NHT, and I wonder about
others' experiences.

Every NHT speaker I've ever listened to was screechy and
unpleasant, especially with classical music. They're
like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

Fortunately for NHT, several 100,000 people disagreed with their
pocketbooks. ;-)

Speaking as one of those people, I'll allow as they are about as bright as
they ever need to be. ;-)

YMMV, but I doubt you'll improve things by changing out
the amp.

Now that I agree with wholeheartely. Especially true of the SZ's with their
amazingly smooth and flat impedance curve. There are speakers that can make
a big difference when driven with an amp that has a high output impedance
like my Q15s.