AR Verticals vs NHT. Anyone own both?

[Guest nathanso]

I'm curious if anyone has had the opportunity to compare the AR Verticals vs the NHT 2.5, 2.9, or 3.3. One might match the AR9 against the NHT 3.3, the AR90 vs the 2.9, etc. Not trying to touch off an off-topic firestorm, mind you.

[Guest richd]

I have not had the chance to listen to the these two speaker together but the exercise is not that important. The NHT 3.3 is one of many speakers that belong to the AR 9 design family tree. Many current speakers, from a multitude of manufactures, are very similar in overall design to the AR 9. Improved driver and crossover design in conjunction with modern computer added design tools and manufacturing technology have resulted in the ability to design speakers better than the original AR 9 but the key point is almost 30 years latter we still see the strong influence of the AR 9. Not all of these current speakers are identical in sound or design intent. The AR 9 platform allows for flexibility in trading on axis response, early reflection response and power response to allow the designer to create a verity of excellent sounding designs

In the 1950s AR made three giant steps forward in speaker 1) the acoustic suspension speaker 2) the dome drivers and 3) the design and sale of a fully integrated speaker system with the consumer no longer required to assemble a speaker from as set of alacart parts and a cabinet. Then AR went 20 years without producing any significant advance in the art of loudspeaker design. Finally with the arrival of the Allison one and products from other newly formed companies it must have become clear that something significant had to be done at AR if the company was going to continue to produce leading edge products. The product they introduced was the 9. The tall thin tower was to become form factor for speakers to the present day. The large bookshelf in the horizontal or vertical position died quickly as did many of the more radically shaped speakers introduce in the mid 70s. The side mounting of the woofer enhanced the reproduction of bass frequency. Deployment of 3 direct firing drivers on the thin baffle insured flat on axis frequency response and smooth vertical radiation patters out to 60 degrees or more. Proper placement of all the drivers and correct choices of crossover frequencies minimized boundary effects in the room I see the AR 9 as the 4th and last of the giant contribution by the company In 2006 we are at the leading edge of the next design revolution in dynamic loudspeaker design. This is the introduction digital signal processing for driver correction, room correction, and enhanced vertical radiation patterns through the use of DSP based crossovers. Yet even as DSP moves onto center stage it will be built of the foundations of the AR 1, 3, and 9

David Rich.

[dynaco_dan]

Excellent write-up, Rich.

[Guest Bret]

>I see the AR 9 as the 4th and last of the giant contribution by the company<

David -

I respectfully submit that you forgot two giants.

Numbers 5 and 6 are both in the same speaker system.

#5 - The MTM configuration,

#6 - The speaker's ability to change the room's interactions rather than adjust to them.

MTM has been popular for years.

Forcing the room to do something it otherwise wouldn't is where we seem to be headed after a Rip Van Winkle-like pause.

Both of these design elements are contained in Ken Kantor's MGC-1; to my mind the last product of any lasting consequence or major state-of-the-art advancement to come out of AR.

Would you disagree?

Bret