NHT Super Zero 2.1 Review (bookshelf speaker)

[YSC]

What a hack this reviewer is. I don't know how anybody takes any of these reviews seriously. Another great speaker shot down again. No credibility whatsoever.

mate you better mind your wordings, it's on the insult front of things

Well I think what is great here is that no matter what Amirm said in his subjective part or data interpretation, all those data published is a really good way of letting us remotely able to read a graph draw our own conclusion about the speaker/dac/amp/headphone, after all all those criticism Amirm made is stating one interpretation, say if I really love the brand, and planned to use it with a sub, it's obviously fine I read the graph, feel the mid to high is up to my need and neutral, and I can make up my mind caring less about the panther grade. Same can be done to the headphone reviews where some of us don't agree with the conclusion about tonality.

ASR reviews having all those objective measurements is the best part of the review, such as Tyll in innerfedility I used to admire and follow, those are the real basis of product comparison and not yet another youtube or blog where the reviewer just claim every new product heavenly or not, and I have no way to compare between 2 products he reviewed differs in a few years age as all are subjective words.

 

[anmpr1]

EDIT: Who needs bass? Let’s just skip it...

It's a 4.5 inch paper cone in a small box. I'm not sticking up for this thing, but really! The idea that anyone anywhere is going to get (or expects to get) real bass at real SPL from a four inch paper cone in a small box that costs seventy dollars? There has to be some perspective here.

 

[Tks]

Distorted bass that doesn't exist lol.

 

[M00ndancer]

I agree with that and beside the waveguide-less choice it seems amazing for the price and size to me, obviously when u decide to use it alone without a sub it’s another story but then it’s against what the design is about

I disagree, there are far better surrounds/satellite speaker for the same money out there. If the cost of freight wasn't so high I would ship one of spare Dynavoice Magic S-3 EX v3 to @amirm just to see what I got for $68/pair.


NHT SuperZero 2.1
Current price: $125 excl taxes /pair
Configuration: 2-way, closed
Tweeter: 1" soft dome
Woofer: 4.5"
Impedance: 8 Ohm nominal, 4.3 Ohm minimum
Frequency Response: 85Hz - 25KHz (+/-3dB)
Crossover Frequency : 2kHz
Sensitivity: 87 dB
R.M.S Power: ? W
Max Power: 75 W
Theoretical SPL @ 1 m with 75W power : 105.8 dB
Size: 9"/229mm x 5.5"/140mm x 4.8"122mm
Weight: 2.63 kg / 5.8 lb

Dynavoice Magic S-3 EX v3 (not longer in production, but still for sale)
Current price: $125 excl taxes /pair
Configuration: 2-way, ported
Tweeter: 1" soft dome
Woofer: 3.5"
Impedance: 4 Ohm
Frequency Response: 50 Hz to 32 000Hz (+/-3dB?)
Sensitivity: 90 dB
R.M.S Power: 50 W
Max Power: 70 W
Theoretical SPL @ 1 m with 70W power : 108.5 dB
Size: 7.87"/200mm x 4.72"/120mm x 4.17"/106mm
Weight: 2.4 kg / 5.3 lb

 

[anmpr1]

Distorted bass that doesn't exist lol.

It's sort of like criticizing a three legged mutt because it can't run the track like a thoroughbred greyhound. I mean, go ahead and go off on the mutt because it has fleas and needs a bath, or a bad disposition and wants to bite everyone, but don't get upset because it can't run fast.

 

[YSC]

I disagree, there are far better surrounds/satellite speaker for the same money out there. If the cost of freight wasn't so high I would ship one of spare Dynavoice Magic S-3 EX v3 to @amirm just to see what I got for $68/pair.


NHT SuperZero 2.1
Current price: $125 excl taxes /pair
Configuration: 2-way, closed
Tweeter: 1" soft dome
Woofer: 4.5"
Impedance: 8 Ohm nominal, 4.3 Ohm minimum
Frequency Response: 85Hz - 25KHz (+/-3dB)
Crossover Frequency : 2kHz
Sensitivity: 87 dB
R.M.S Power: ? W
Max Power: 75 W
Theoretical SPL @ 1 m with 75W power : 105.8 dB
Size: 9"/229mm x 5.5"/140mm x 4.8"122mm
Weight: 2.63 kg / 5.8 lb

Dynavoice Magic S-3 EX v3 (not longer in production, but still for sale)
Current price: $125 excl taxes /pair
Configuration: 2-way, ported
Tweeter: 1" soft dome
Woofer: 3.5"
Impedance: 4 Ohm
Frequency Response: 50 Hz to 32 000Hz (+/-3dB?)
Sensitivity: 90 dB
R.M.S Power: 50 W
Max Power: 70 W
Theoretical SPL @ 1 m with 70W power : 108.5 dB
Size: 7.87"/200mm x 4.72"/120mm x 4.17"/106mm
Weight: 2.4 kg / 5.3 lb

View attachment 100851

Well what I mean is it’s not ridiculous expensive for what it can offer, and the FR is flatter in its range than a lot of competitors costing even more. So yeah you can always find something with more bang for the buck, but it can’t be said to be completely crap or headless in its design class though.
It’s kind of like criticising Leica don’t zoom like a canon and it cost 2 times or more, but it’s still good in some areas and that’s where the graphs comes handy. Purchase decisions can be made based on pure performance or other things like customer service, brand name, look etc.

 

[SIY]

I disagree, there are far better surrounds/satellite speaker for the same money out there. If the cost of freight wasn't so high I would ship one of spare Dynavoice Magic S-3 EX v3 to @amirm just to see what I got for $68/pair.
NHT SuperZero 2.1
Current price: $125 excl taxes /pair

I think that's the price per speaker, not per pair. So $250 per pair.

 

[sfdoddsy]

Back in the day, the Super Zero was one of the default recommendation for starter audiophiles. Whilst often recommended for solo use, the cool thing was to use them with the dedicated NHT crossover/amp and subs.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/nht-superzero-loudspeaker-sw2-subwoofer-measurements

Interestingly, JA's measurements and comments (especially about the bass) track pretty closely with Amir's 26 years later.

I tried them at the time and recollect feeling that spending $700 (in 1995 dollars) to make $250 speakers listenable didn't really make sense.

I very much enjoyed some of NHTs bigger speakers though, especially the 3.3.

And their XD active DSP system from 2005 using DEQX for crossovers and EQ was years ahead of its time. Its measurements are right up there with today's D&Ds, Kiis, Neumanns etc, albeit without some of the clever learning about dispersion and waveguides etc.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/nht-xd-active-loudspeaker-system-measurements

 

[whazzup]

It's sort of like criticizing a three legged mutt because it can't run the track like a thoroughbred greyhound. I mean, go ahead and go off on the mutt because it has fleas and needs a bath, or a bad disposition and wants to bite everyone, but don't get upset because it can't run fast.

Totally get your cool example, but also note that the 3-legged mutt is being sold on the same marketplaces as other 4-legged mutts.

And I don't think a lot of people actually understand where this potentially leads to (w.r.t the reviews/reviewer). (I don't mean you @anmpr1 )

Say 1 person complained this speaker should not be rated as such. So now we have a satellite speaker category. Or maybe a 4.5" category. And it's given a better panther. Then we have another speaker that's a 3 incher but in a huge box and the driver can somehow displace a lot of air. Maybe that warrants yet another category because another complained. So now to soothe everyone's sensitive feathers, every speaker gets an A-star in its own category? Now the reviewer needs to juggle all these weight classes and ensure 'fairness'?

Maybe it's better to expect grown men (or women) to learn how to read the data / reviews objectively and draw their own conclusions.

 

[sarumbear]

I don't agree with rating these poorly...

You don't have to. In fact you are not expected to.

As the name of the forum states @amirm is using scientifically sound measurements and then adds his subjective ratings. It is his forum and he has every right to rate products as he pleases. What we get out of it is objective measurements, done correctly.

 

[sarumbear]

What a hack this reviewer is. I don't know how anybody takes any of these reviews seriously. Another great speaker shot down again. No credibility whatsoever.

Which part of the measurements do you disagree?

 

[YSC]

Totally get your cool example, but also note that the 3-legged mutt is being sold on the same marketplaces as other 4-legged mutts.

And I don't think a lot of people actually understand where this potentially leads to (w.r.t the reviews/reviewer). (I don't mean you @anmpr1 )

Say 1 person complained this speaker should not be rated as such. So now we have a satellite speaker category. Or maybe a 4.5" category. And it's given a better panther. Then we have another speaker that's a 3 incher but in a huge box and the driver can somehow displace a lot of air. Maybe that warrants yet another category because another complained. So now to soothe everyone's sensitive feathers, every speaker gets an A-star in its own category? Now the reviewer needs to juggle all these weight classes and ensure 'fairness'?

Maybe it's better to expect grown men (or women) to learn how to read the data / reviews objectively and draw their own conclusions.

Well I think we don’t need a ton of categories, but instead use the “recommended or reserved unless ...” ranking, just like saying you can’t use the Leica as a do everything camera but if you only intend it for slow or steady portrait situation it’s rendition is great, or day I review a Ferrari and say it isn’t a family car, but instead of giving it a worthless overpriced junk ranking saying if you only plan to use it on track or as a fun car..

 

[sarumbear]

I don't agree with rating these poorly based on the poor bass response with no subwoofer, given that the manufacturer clearly states that these should never be used without a subwoofer.

This is what the manufacture says on the product page

The SuperZero 2.1 is a true high-end mini-monitor that builds on the merits of its predecessors through the addition of a 2nd order crossover and a newly revised woofer. The SuperZero 2.1 is small speaker, at just 9" tall x 5" wide x 5.5" deep, that achieves its lifelike mid-range and high frequencies through acoustic suspension technology. This compact, well-braced cabinet coated with a beautiful black gloss laminate is designed to be inherently strong and stout in order to avoid the unwanted vibrations that afflict the mid-range performance of other speakers on the market. These small differences significantly lower distortion, improve power handling, and make the SuperZero 2.1 sound much bigger than its size. With easy wall/ceiling mounting options available, the SuperZero 2.1 complements the SS 10 subwoofer perfectly in creating an affordable yet high-end stereo or surround sound system.
https://www.nhthifi.com/products/10654-superzero-2-1-our-amazing-mini-monitor

Which part of it is "clear" that you "should never" use these without a subwoofer? Any speaker can be seen as complimenting a subwoofer. NHT says these are "true high-end mini-monitors". A high-end monitor should not have that many irregularities like this unit, nor have such high distortion. Do you expect that distortion to go away when it is complimented by a subwoofer, without using an active crossover???

Looking at the measurements there can only be one conclusion: these are simply bad speakers, not worth their worth even after discount.

 

[whazzup]

Well I think we don’t need a ton of categories, but instead use the “recommended or reserved unless ...” ranking, just like saying you can’t use the Leica as a do everything camera but if you only intend it for slow or steady portrait situation it’s rendition is great, or day I review a Ferrari and say it isn’t a family car, but instead of giving it a worthless overpriced junk ranking saying if you only plan to use it on track or as a fun car..

Precisely why this becomes messy down the line. Should a single driver speaker be rated different from a 2 way? 3 way? Line array?

They're all meant to reproduce sound, along a range of audible frequencies. That's it. All the other qualifiers and use cases, the reader needs to figure it out, not Amir with his backlog of equipment to test.

 

[wwenze]

Here's the problem tho: Yes it has no bass, yes the manufacturer may have said it needs a sub (Let's just say this is the case for the sake of argument)
But then we have people who recommend this speaker without saying it needs a sub?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-speakers-500.12734/#post-380809

 

[YSC]

Precisely why this becomes messy down the line. Should a single driver speaker be rated different from a 2 way? 3 way? Line array?

They're all meant to reproduce sound, along a range of audible frequencies. That's it. All the other qualifiers and use cases, the reader needs to figure it out, not Amir with his backlog of equipment to test.

I agree it's not Amir's responsibility to divide it down to whatever sub category, you check my previous post I said preciously that ASR is great in that we have the objective measurements so we could decide on the product is complete junk or kind of ok or even great for what it's intended to be.

just saying if too many disagreement the "reserved if.." grading just like here, a pretty flat speaker with the intension to be used with a sub in it's name and product page. just to differentiate it with the "junk no matter how you use" stuffs.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I realise it is intended to be used with a sub, but even so, it's a pretty high-Q enclosure, with a 2-3dB peak at around 160Hz, and is already 3dB down above 100Hz, which won't make sub integration a walk in the park.

Quick question @amirm or others in the know. Are waveguides on tweeters there to essentially make the tweeter bigger than it really is? Is part of the problem with blending a tweeter & woofer is that they are hugely different diameters, and therefore you need a waveguide to expand/widen the the frequency response to almost mimic if the tweeter was the same physical diameter of the woofer? Was just imagining this now, but no idea if that's the crux of the issue.

The larger the diameter of a driver, the lower in frequency it will begin to beam, i.e. to become narrower and narrower in directivity. This means that, typically, a 5" or 6"+ woofer in a two way will already be beginning to narrow in directivity as its output approaches the crossover frequency (typically 2kHz-3kHz). Meanwhile, above the crossover frequency, the tweeter, with its diameter typically being only 1" or so, will have a very wide directivity (with the faceplate/baffle essentially being the only thing preventing it from radiating 360°).

Therefore, to avoid a mismatch in directivity between the woofer and tweeter at the crossover frequency, a waveguide is used to control (narrow) the tweeter's directivity so that it is similar to the woofer's at the crossover frequency, allowing for a smooth transition in terms of directivity between the two drivers.

EDIT: and I guess waveguides act a bit like the horn on a gramophone or megaphone....but to lesser extents?

Exactly. Another property of waveguides is that they act as a horn, increasing the acoustic impedance of the air in front of the tweeter and therefore improving its efficiency.

In general, the term "waveguide" is used more in the home audio world, and especially when the emphasis is on directivity control, while the term "horn" is used more in the PA world, and especially when the emphasis is more on acoustically loading the driver.

 

[Puddingbuks]

Please review less mediocre budget speakers and more mid/high end stuff.

 

[richard12511]

If you added a subwoofer, where would you set the crossover point, 150 Hz?

You'd almost have to. Probably would require multiple subs to avoid localization.

 

[Tks]

It's sort of like criticizing a three legged mutt because it can't run the track like a thoroughbred greyhound. I mean, go ahead and go off on the mutt because it has fleas and needs a bath, or a bad disposition and wants to bite everyone, but don't get upset because it can't run fast.

Idk about others, but to me, it seems like if you have distortion anywhere, that would affect performance of the driver in function overall. Like if my bass is distorting, and I run a music track playing bass and highs/mids at the same time in rapid succession, feels like the distortion of the bass would impact it's ability to play the highs/mids properly since the driver can't get back into position on time.

It's why I think we see as volume increases, other areas of the FR plot suddenly start misbehaving, and why when you EQ the most problematic areas, it doesn't seem to be the case you're left with messed up distortion in those other parts that started misbehaving as volume raised and the primary bass distortion skyrocketed that seemingly affected other parts of FR.


To me, it seems like if you take a speaker like this, and EQ away the bass distortion, (by way of High Pass filtering everything under 150Hz with some powerful filter capable of 50dB+ per octave, since bass is dead anyway), I'd wager the mids and highs (though the highs don't seem distorted at all with this speaker obviously) would improve substantially.

One thing I'd like to know is if this works the opposite way (say you have a speaker that for some reason produces sub 1% distortion even down to 10Hz, but for some reason the high mids/highs skyrocket to 10%+ distortion). I wonder if Low Pass'ing the highs entirely would improve bass/mids performance further. I'm not technically aware of why it would truth be told, seeing as how speakers don't seem to be stressed compared to when they're forced to perform sub-bass duties (though a speaker distortion 10%+ on highs seems to be broken before anyone would care to find out).

I don't know how long it takes Amir to run the THD tests. But I would love to see one test to see if my hunch holds true, about other parts of the FR cleaning up, if you completely decimate with powerful High/Low-Pass filters all the problematic Highs but especially Lows for a speaker.

To me, if people can test themselves for their upper limit (if you can hear something like 15Khz at best, then you only have to gain by decimating all information over 15Khz in EQ if you can), I think that would be a boon to driver function perhaps, and would go a long way for emerging markets conerning themselves with built-in DSP in listening devices like the wireless ones we see making great headway these days.

That is of course again, assuming my hunch is right.

Also wouldn't doing something like this aid in battery life for wireless products? Getting rid of frequencies you don't need? Likewise with amps (I don't imagine having to produce sub bass mains hum present much music is desired for power amps to be trying to produce all the time) -thank you RME DAC for showing me how much of my music has sub bass mains hum junk in it-