NHT Super Zero 2.1 Review (bookshelf speaker)

[sarumbear]

Also, we're not talking "hi-end" here.

well... we are talking about an “The SuperZero 2.1 is a true high-end mini-monitor” according to the manufacturer.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

ASR speaker reviews tend to morph into Forrest Gump's box of chocolates -- you never know what you're gonna get.

 

[raistlin65]

well... we are talking about an “The SuperZero 2.1 is a true high-end mini-monitor” according to the manufacturer.

You are overly fixated on the marketing prose. I'm pretty sure that's what NHT has been calling that speaker for the last 25 years. Who cares? lol

 

[sarumbear]

You are overly fixated on the marketing prose. I'm pretty sure that's what NHT has been calling that speaker for the last 25 years. Who cares? lol

I do. And a manufacturer lying is no laughing matter.

 

[beagleman]

AVRs are not suitable for high end stereo. Never have been, and never will. They are a massive compromise in pretty much all areas from the power supplies, the heatsink area, to the SOA in silicon.

Sure, you can pick up some bargain priced giant AVRs for cents on the dollar, but don't kid yourself you are getting SOTA stereo reproduction and performance when compared to dedicated pre/power combinations.

I think many have a different opinion, than yours, and comments like above can come off as quite negative.

I thought the same as you, until I heard a few AVRs. Your opinions are way overblown and possibly based on fears of something inexpensive being able to sound much better than you want to believe.

I own a couple Yamaha AVRs right now, bought recently based on me being surprised how much better they sounded than I had believed.
I have had several other set ups with total separates and integrated amps, and vintage receivers.
No one product has been bashed as much as the average AVR. They are not perfect, but they sound FAR better what you are saying.
Sorry but I call total BS on your Opinion.

Maybe just my opinion, but the AVR bashing is getting old.

 

[raistlin65]

I do. And a manufacturer lying is no laughing matter.

It's what an advertiser named it in the 1990s. It's not worth pointing out over and over and over again.

 

[richard12511]

well... we are talking about an “The SuperZero 2.1 is a true high-end mini-monitor” according to the manufacturer.

I think you're putting too much weight into marketing mumbo jumbo .

Regardless of what they're marketing department says, these are not high end speakers, and an AVR is a perfectly acceptable way to power them. In fact, I would guess that's the most common source for budget passive speakers like this.

 

[leeroy 85032]

I think you're putting too much weight into marketing mumbo jumbo .

Regardless of what they're marketing department says, these are not high end speakers, and an AVR is a perfectly acceptable way to power them. In fact, I would guess that's the most common source for budget passive speakers like this.

I think amir is clearly inconsistent in how he weighs his recs and i think he was (way) overly harsh in his assessment that nht has been diminished, based on the performance of the most entry level speaker ..but.... These are just small entry level books , they , I'm sure, aren't audiophile in any sense of the meaning....

 

[amirm]

Revel lists the -3dB on their site. Like this speaker, it's intended to be used with a sub, but is sold separately without one. If Revel is being honest about the -3dB point, the M8 is basically guaranteed to be a headless panther if it's evaluated in a full range use case(even if it's perfect everywhere else).

??? You mean all we need to completely write off a speaker is its -3 dB point? All the other things we measure mean nothing? Bass importance has gone from 1/3 that research indicates now to 100%? You want to make me a table of -3 dB point and panther score?

 

[watchnerd]

Using an original pair of Super Zeroes along with the matching passive SW1 dual 6" sealed sub (all vintage 1991) and while I'm not sure as to the crossover point, there doesn't seem to be integration issues that I can hear...then again my ancient ears...View attachment 101153

Well, that matches my faded recollection of attempting to integrate them with a dual 8" driver M&K MX-700 using an 80 Hz crossover circa 21 years ago...

 

[watchnerd]

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

c.f.

"Detailed"

 

[amirm]

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

What do I care how they position a flaw into a feature? My job is to evaluate a speaker as it sits and sold. And this one looked like a good budget bookshelf speaker to test as suggested by the members.

And where would this requirement end? If manufacturer said it needs 500 hours of burn in, I am supposed to follow that as well?

As I showed, people clearly asked me to test this speaker as is. Here is another example: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ike-to-see-reviewed.10943/page-51#post-478487

One person suggested and three others agreed. None chimed in with: "but oh, you must not test it without a sub."

Another member asks for it again:

Still no sign of any sub being required for my testing.

I have never tested a speaker with sub. So any expectation that such would be the case with some speaker here belongs to someone else's review site, not mine.

Once more: this speaker is sold independently and it was tested independently. Unless it stops working without a sub, it is suitable to be used and tested as such. Just like countless other bass shy speakers.

The only case any of you would have is if I broke up a typical 5.1 little speakers and sub, and only tested the little speakers. No such thing happened here. That I not only get the criticism but some insults thrown in for good measure is more than I can accept.

This experience has led me to think about how to handle review threads in the future. It seems some of you just think of these as a battleground to be fought whether you have anything constructive to say, or have any interest in the product being tested. It is my fault for encouraging such a culture by providing abundant room for a few members to abuse the freedom. What should have been a quick review -- get in, get out -- has become cause célèbre for some to throw any punches they can.

Really, did someone say I am not testing their genre of music so my evaluations have no value for him??? I must have missed the part of research that said listener votes were rejected because what music they were evaluating the speakers with was not their favorite!

Anyway, I have had enough of this from a handful of you. I am going to close the thread.