You are here

Log in or register to post comments
John Ashman
John Ashman's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2005 - 12:22pm
NHT Three review errata.......

1. RJR says that the previous NHT SB3 was "bass-reflex". It was not. Not sure how he made that mistake after owning them for three or four years!

2. He said:

"The Nola Mini had a natural midrange as well as extended and detailed highs. Midrange inner detail was more revealing through the Nola, however, and its bass extension and high-level dynamic capabilities were superior to the those of the NHT Three." (The Nola is better, but the Nola is better"?!?)

But I'm 95% sure, based on context he actually meant this:

"The Nola Mini had a natural midrange as well as extended and detailed highs. Midrange inner detail was more revealing through the NHT, however, and its bass extension and high-level dynamic capabilities were superior to the those of the Nola Mini."

Especially since he specifically references the "bass extension and high level dynamic capabilities" as NHT's major strengths in the paragraph before *and* after this one. Me thinks RJR needs to get more sleep. He's apparently delirious.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: NHT Three review errata.......


Quote:
RJR says that the previous NHT SB3 was "bass-reflex". It was not. Not sure how he made that mistake after owning them for three or four years!

Brainfade on our part. Thanks for the correction.

The other text was fine as is, however.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Ashman
John Ashman's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2005 - 12:22pm
Re: NHT Three review errata.......

Heckuva "brainfade"

But seriously? That paragraph makes no sense, not grammatically, not contextually, not logically. He's saying that the Nola is better in some ways, "however" better than NHT's strengths, which are supposedly dynamics, resolution and bass. This isn't supported by measurements either. If this is true, then that means the Nola is a much better speaker in every way for $100 less, so why would he then praise the NHT for being so good at the things in which the Nola is better? Makes *no* sense.

Could RJR weigh in on this, I don't think you're following my logic here.

John Ashman
John Ashman's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2005 - 12:22pm
Re: NHT Three review errata.......

Also:

It's smaller, and while it is still a sealed-box, acoustic-suspension design, the Three is a three-way speaker with a

trane1
trane1's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 10 2006 - 8:53pm
Re: NHT Three review errata.......

John Ashman is right about the paragraph comparing the Nola Mini and the NHT Three: The language is, at best, muddy. RJR should clarify.

frazierspa
frazierspa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 14 2007 - 6:52am
Re: NHT Three review errata.......

I have to agree, BIG TIME! RJR should clarify his comments in his comparison of the sound of the Classic Three's relative to the Nola's. I am now in the market for this class of speaker and currently doing my research. Mr. Atkinson, at the request of two enthusiasts, how come you never asked RJR to clarify his thoughts on the above quote? Now a third Stereophile reader is asking for clarification. One of the most important paragraphs in the entire write-up makes no sense. Hmmm, maybe you don't want it to make sense. Maybe this you your convoluted way of not saying anything negative about a product. Picking an out right winner might not be good for business. Please prove us wrong. Please request that RJR provide us with additional feedback. Thanks in advance!
Scott

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm
Re: NHT Three review errata.......

I think you guys are letting the use of 'however' confuse your reading of the paragraph. He's talking about the Nola's virtues and not that of the NHT's.

It reads something like this; The NHTs were good, but the Nolas were also good and even better than the NHTs in these respects.

The use of "however" was not intended as a substitution for "but."

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: NHT Three review errata.......


Quote:
I think you guys are letting the use of 'however' confuse your reading of the paragraph. He's talking about the Nola's virtues and not that of the NHT's.

Exactly so, Monty. Thank you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

frazierspa
frazierspa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 14 2007 - 6:52am
Re: NHT Three review errata.......


Quote:
I think you guys are letting the use of 'however' confuse your reading of the paragraph. He's talking about the Nola's virtues and not that of the NHT's.

It reads something like this; The NHTs were good, but the Nolas were also good and even better than the NHTs in these respects.

The use of "however" was not intended as a substitution for "but."

WOW! I can't believe someone read my post on this old thread

Ok, I was 99% sure I knew what he was trying to say, ie. that the NHT were good but not as good as the Nola's. The issue the three of us had was that he never just came right out and said so. So we asked if he could clarify his statement. Obviously it was the way he used the word "however". Usually the word "however" is used to introduce a statement contrasting with a previous one, such as, "on the other hand"....or to introduce a restricting or counterbalancing consideration. It doesn't seem as though there is any contrast in his statement. It would have been more clear if he just left out the word "however". 'Guess I better find a retailer in my area who sells the Nola's.
Cheers!
St

frazierspa
frazierspa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 14 2007 - 6:52am
Re: NHT Three review errata.......

Shoot! Just went to the Accent Speakers Technology website and it looks as though they no longer offer the Mini. At least the website doesn't show it under the "Products" section.
St

frazierspa
frazierspa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 14 2007 - 6:52am
Re: NHT Three review errata.......

Mr. Atkinson, I know this is a crazy question, but how do you think the NHT Classic 3 compares to the B&W 805? I know there is a HUGE cost difference. Do you think the extra $1,500 is worth it for the 805's. Thanks!
St

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading