Roy's listening 9 vs NHT 3.3 vs 10Pi

[Steve F]

As an aside, I was able to listen to AR-9's, AR 10pi's, and NHT 3.3's side by side awhile back with a few other forum members. The NHT's with a single 1259 woofer per cabinet were the favorite by all in attendance. The 10pi's were a distant 3rd. The 9's were a close second.

Roy

We'd love to hear more details on this--

What was the occasion? A private enthusiast's house?

Size/acoustics of the listening room?

Associated equipment?

Program material?

When you say the 3.3 was preferred, did it "win" in all frequency ranges (B, MR, T), or was it an "overall" tonal winner?

How did the 1259's bass compare with the 9's dual 12's? (We presume the 1259 was stronger and deeper than the 10Pi's single 12.)

It's not really a surprise to me that the 10Pi was third. To my ear, the 3-way AR's that use that 1 1/2" dome mid have always had a slightly "woody" or "nasal" character to the mids. Less so on the 10Pi and 11 then on the 3a, because the 3a's less prominent treble makes the mid stand out more in comparison.

The 9 doesn't seem to suffer from this nearly as much, if at all. It has a very "modern," uncolored tonal character.

But please, fill us in.

Steve F.

[ar_pro]

Steve - the NHT 3.3 was very well-regarded for low-frequency response - even Stereophile, a magazine that hasn't historically preferred affordable full-range systems gave the 3.3 high marks for its bass performance in this review from 1993: http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1293nht

The selection of drivers from SEAS (tweeter & upper-mid) and Tonegen (woofer & lower midrange) is mentioned, as well as NHT's reasoning behind the angled baffle - it's a good read.

I recall auditioning the 3.3 before selling the Acoustat 2+2 electrostatic systems that we'd owned for a few years, and coming away with a good overall impression, although the dealer was showing them with Audio Research amplification, and I felt them to be slightly under-powered during the demo.

My wife (who actually liked the look of the room-dominating 2+2), absolutely loathed the 3.3's appearance - it had something to do with the narrow cabinet's nearly 3-foot depth, and those outrigger-type stabilizers, as I recall.

At the time, a friend mentioned that he knew a man who was parting with his AR-9 systems (he'd been cleaned out by divorce), and wondered if we'd be interested in them.

Having owned original 9's for a few years, we thought we knew what to expect when we stopped by to audition them. This man had been using McIntosh amplification, and the match was made in heaven - we'd used Crown and Adcom (no slouches) with our original 9s, but the difference was substantial, and we bought his speakers on the spot, and then purchased our first Mac amplifier to drive our "new" AR-9's.

On reflection, I'd say that the AR-9 has an edge in overall dynamic range, and the ability to "drive" a large room (again, with proper amplification), but the soundstage presentation of the NHT 3.3 in a smaller room is exceptional; and having spent some time with the magical focus that a full-range electrostatic can provide, that's saying something.

It's entirely possible that the 3.3 is as amplifier-dependent as the AR-9, and would continue to improve as the quality of the associated equipment is upgraded - I wouldn't be surprised.

[Steve F]

I'm well aquainted with the 3.3, having heard them on several occasions and reading the many excellent reviews. I had considered buying them, but their shape was just a little too strange for me. The 2.9s were more pleasing aesthetically, but not as potent in the bass.

Your "on reflection" comment implies that you had actually owned 3.3s at some point and could therefore compare their sound in your room to your 9's. Or are you just surmising how the 3.3s would have done in your room, based on your having listened to them and being an experienced listener?

I'm really curious as to how that single 1259 woofer compares to the dual 12's in the 9 for clarity, impact and extension.

Given the angled baffle, I'll assume that the 3.3 is a bit more "focused" and "sweet spot sensitive" than the 9.

The 3.3 is probably the best-reviewed sealed system in the "modern era" that Stereophile has ever reviewed. Virtually every large speaker that crosses their door these days is some variation of vented.

Steve F.

[ar_pro]

Never owned the 3.3 - my favorable impression was from the extensive auditioning that we'd done while speaker shopping, and the "experienced listener" factor.

My recollection is of a very well-balanced, full-range system, with a solid and extended low end, but with a somewhat smaller sense of scale - the demo did not leave me with the feeling that the single NHT woofer bettered the dual-woofer system in the AR-9 for depth & impact; but that could be due to the Audio Research amplification used - we might not have heard the 3.3 at its best.

The Stereophile reviewer alludes to a "minimonitor" effect, as the NHT's cabinet depth forces the upper-range drivers out into the room, much like stand-mounted minis - this is not an inaccurate observation, and calls for the attention to a sweet spot that you've mentioned.

[RoyC]

Several of us got together in 2009 at the home of another forum member who owns these speakers. He had them set up in a large, live, room. I believe more information on the room and associated equipment will be posted by others who were in attendance. A wide sampling of music was listened to with cds being the source. The electronics were top notch.

My general impressions were:

-The AR-10pi's were pretty much outclassed in every respect, especially at higher volume levels. I agree with Steve regarding the nasal character of the midrange. They were actually removed from the listening area after the first hour of many hours (over two days) of listening, so we could concentrate on the 3.3's vs the 9's.

-The 9's were the most reverberant, but less defined than the 3.3's throughout the spectrum. The 9's reverberant character did not result in a greater soundstage, imo.

-The 3.3's were the most balanced. Bass response was nearly the equal of the 9's, with a more defined mid bass. 3.3 vocals were more "open" and very natural sounding to my ear, with the 9 having a slight hint of the nasal quality of the 10pi's.

-The 3.3's midrange and highs were more controlled at higher volume levels.

-I Did not find the AR speakers to have an advantage off-axis. My impressions remained the same everywhere in the room. The speakers were moved around a bit as well.

-I listen to a great deal of vocal and acoustic music, which I'm sure influenced my preference for the 3.3's. To me, the 3.3's were better able to provide an illusion of a solo performer being in the room.

-Loud orchestral music and pipe organ lovers could very well prefer the 9's.

-At lower volume levels any of the 3 pairs of speakers can be very satisfying.

There are too many variables, subjective or otherwise, to pronounce speakers at this level to be "better" than another. These were simply my impressions and preferences at that time and place. Even though the general consensus leaned slightly toward the 3.3's, it was not overwhelming.

The downside to the 3.3 is it is a heavy, deep, black box, and though slightly smaller than the monolithic 9, is not going to fit any more easily in many rooms. In fact, having only one side firing woofer, and a weird shape, probably makes the 3.3 more difficult to place in a room.

Roy

[Steve F]

Thanks for the detailed and expressive write up. If I had to "predict" how these three speakers would sound on a comparative basis, my prediction would have closely matched your actual listening impressions.

Your off-axis impression is not actually that surprising, in spite of the NHT's angled baffle and the 9's "wide dispersion" UMR driver. I have found that once a speaker's general tonal voice is presented, that voice remains pretty constant anywhere you are. A great exception to this is, of course, electrostatic-type speakers, whose mid- and high-frequency output "falls off a cliff" outside a certain window.

But with normal dynamic direct radiator speakers, their essential tonal quality dominates no matter where you listen from.

The 3a certainly had far better dispersion than the original Large Advent, seeing as the 3a crossed over to the 1 1/2" mid at 575 Hz (525 Hz in later 3a's), while the Advent's big cone woofer went all the way up to 1000 Hz. Then above 5000 Hz, the 3a's 3/4" dome had far, far better dispersion than the Advent 2" doughnut tweeter.

But no one would EVER fail to distinguish between a 3a and a Large Advent, tonally, would they? Makes no difference whether you were on or off axis, close or far away, standing or sitting.

The 3.3 strikes me as being the beneficiary of more modern driver availability, better test/measurement techniques, more awareness of the possible differences in audibility that certain x-over component types might play in critical circuits, etc. than the other speakers.

It was as if the designer of the AR-9 was told, 15 years later, "OK, now you can do it again.....this time with all you've learned over the years and with 15 years newer components and test methods. See what you can do."

He did the 3.3. Great speaker.

(Except it won't fit into 90% of the normal home living rooms out there.)

Steve F.

[Diamonds&Rust]

Steve et al.

I've just dropped-in to agree with almost everything that has been said in this discussion.

My points of contention are small, but then, maybe not.

My "basic" point would be this: The NHT 3.3 has benefited from advances in driver technology, the MTM-type driver arrangement, and its purely functional physical shape. It does not suffer some of the challenges AR had with crossover design and so has less "stuff" to adversely affect the signal getting to the drivers and fewer areas of crossover overlap to cause lobing and other undesirable things.

You've seen the experience of the AR-9 referred-to as one a listener might prefer. I cannot comment on that.

What I can say is that the NHT 3.3 will play sounds that you can't force the AR-9 to reproduce by fooling around with tone controls or an equalizer, so it isn't a matter of flat vs emphasizing one part of the audio spectrum or another. I chalk this up to advances in driver technology and the aging of the AR drivers.

You asked about bass impact. It depends on what you mean by that. The AR-9 seems (to me) to be able to more easily produce that over-pressure sensation you get sitting in a church with a powerful pipe organ. These frequencies are as much felt as heard and it should surprise noone that four of AR's woofers located more or less at the junction of a wall and floor are capable of projecting really extremely loud, almost sub-sonic, clean bass energy into a room.

If I am looking for a someone-has-hit-me-in-the-chest "BAM!" from a speaker, I have to confess to finding the single NHT 3.3 driver entirely up to the task and more convincingly than the AR-9 does.

That was unexpected.

If you look at the driver configuration of the 9, you would think that the 8" would give the impact "sound" while the 12" would give the physical impact. My guess is that the crossover's being so high in the AR-9's bass section means the crossover itself may be reducing the "effective" "BANG!" associated with the "BAM!".

For rolling thunder, though, you have to smile at what the 9 does, almost as a physics trick.

Having said that...

I have to believe that the NHT 3.3 is more accurate in every respect.

After spending a great deal of time with both (more with the 9), I have settled on the NHT 3.3 as my "listening experience of choice," due to its highly, highly articulate nature (having nothing to do with "brightness"). The 3.3 will simply reproduce details in the music that the AR-9 cannot.

I am getting older. My high-frequency hearing is diminishing. If either speaker makes noise above 14k, I can no longer hear it.

You or someone mentioned electrostatic speakers. You know how articulate they are. Human voice, particularly female voice, is amazing on electrostatics. I find the NHT 3.3 to give me an experience as though I am in front of electrostatics, but without the high frequency roll-off of an electrostatic, and without the loss of power in the upper bass registers. In short, I'm saying that the 3.3, to me, sounds like a "perfect electrostatic speaker."

The experience of listening to the 9 and the 3.3s is very, very different. Speaking for myself only, I find it easy to move from listening to an AR-9 to the NHT 3.3 and *impossible* to move the other direction. Well, that is, I used-to. Not long after this listening-experience was shared I relegated the 9s to another room.

Lest you think it is my opinion, only: My wife, on inspecting the 3.3s, asked if I intended to leave "those things" in the living room (with disdain). After hearing them she asked if I had to move them out.

As to the concert-hall experience of the AR-9, I would say, "Yes," I can hear less detail in a marimba from sixty feet away than I can sitting next to it."

[Rlowe]

Roy and Bret,

I can agree with all your comments because I was lucky enough to be there ;-).

It was an excellent time together.

[RoyC]

You would think Mr Diamonds&Rust actually has some experience with these things! Oh yeah, he does... Bret was our MOST gracious host, and made the entire "event" possible!

I don't disagree with any of Bret's comments. I was giving the AR-9 the benefit of the doubt regarding bass response, as I suspect room boundaries and higher sensitivity could more easily work to its advantage in a different setting. With that said, there was absolutely nothing I personally preferred about the sound of the AR-9's over the 3.3's in two days of listening. The 3.3's had more clarity and definition from top to bottom without the slightest hint of harshness at the top, or boom at the bottom. Compared to the 3.3, the 9's mid-bass/lower mid response was more pronounced. I wouldn't call the 9 muddy, but the 3.3 was, as Bret commented above, more articulate.

This was quite a summit in Dixie in October of '09. Richard was visiting from Australia, and I drove down from NY...and along with Bret's audio friend, Don, a great time was had by all!

Thanks again, Bret!

[Pete B]

Interesting comments.

Just curious - let's say that it was possible to do the NHT 3.3 as a small tower

for the upper 3 way part, and more traditional cubes for the 1259 woofer part

that would be placed directly behind the towers, or roughly. Would this be

more acceptable from an appearance and placement point of view?

Let's say that NHT engineered this so there is no point about getting it "right"

or design issues.

[HarryM]

Does anyone want to offer an opinion on the out come if you had used vinyl as the source. If not I understand.

Harry.

[Diamonds&Rust]

Does anyone want to offer an opinion on the out come if you had used vinyl as the source. If not I understand.

Harry.

Harry, of course I never got the chance to listen to the NHT 3.3 using vinyl, although I suppose I could do it now..., but... now is "too late" for me. I rarely have time to spend a full 45 minutes in front of my stereo without interruption and I can't see spending the kind of money they are asking for turntables, tonearms, and cartridges these days to be able to listen to my LPs from 40 years ago.

My opinion of the outcome... I don't have an opinion. My guess is that the outcome would have been the same. The differences between the two speaker systems are not subtle and they aren't really subjective. The 3.3 would play what was on the vinyl with more accuracy than the 9. Which someone might "prefer" would be up to them.

[HarryM]

Thanks, now I'm going to have to find a pair of these. LOL

Harry

[ligs]

You would think Mr Diamonds&Rust actually has some experience with these things! Oh yeah, he does... Bret was our MOST gracious host, and made the entire "event" possible!

I don't disagree with any of Bret's comments. I was giving the AR-9 the benefit of the doubt regarding bass response, as I suspect room boundaries and higher sensitivity could more easily work to its advantage in a different setting. With that said, there was absolutely nothing I personally preferred about the sound of the AR-9's over the 3.3's in two days of listening. The 3.3's had more clarity and definition from top to bottom without the slightest hint of harshness at the top, or boom at the bottom. Compared to the 3.3, the 9's mid-bass/lower mid response was more pronounced. I wouldn't call the 9 muddy, but the 3.3 was, as Bret commented above, more articulate.

This was quite a summit in Dixie in October of '09. Richard was visiting from Australia, and I drove down from NY...and along with Bret's audio friend, Don, a great time was had by all!

Thanks again, Bret!

[ligs]

I owned AR9s and AR11s but my experience with NHT 3.3's was only in audio show rooms. In terms of clarity, definition and refinement, I prefer NHT 3.3's over AR's, especially for vocals and solo instruments. I believe Ken Kantor designed NHT 3.3 to sound like a mini-monitor plus subwoofer similar to Dave Wilson's design for Wilson Audio.

[Steve F]

The 3.3 made the Tonegen 1259 woofer something of an urban legend, and that woofer became quite a famous piece of gear after that. It did require a fair amount of box volume, so the 3.3's size was at least partly dictated by the woofer's requirements for optimum performance.

More interesting than the 10Pi and 9 vs. the 3.3, to me, would be the 303 vs. the 3.3. Both KK-designed and voiced, both sealed, both with similar aims, but one a conventional bookshelf, the other a placement-specific floorstander.

A close friend has 303's and I have 9's. Although we've never A-B'd them in the same room, when I've listened to the same CDs on them that I know well, the 303's are 'harder' and 'more focused' than the 9's. Roy's description above of the 9's being "more reverberant" is apt, as they seem to have a softer edge to their attack and seem more expansive, while the 303's are sharper and more focused.

I'd be willing to guess that the 303 resembles the 3.3 much more closely than either the 10Pi or the 9.

Steve F.

[soundminded]

I haven't heard the NHT 3.3 however I do have some observations about AR9 which I've owned for 29 years. AR9 as manufactured did not have accurate treble. There was no amount of FR tweaking between level controls and an equalizer that could get it accurate. Only substantial modification of the system's high frequency dispersion using a 11 outboard indrect firing tweeters per channel and careful tonal rebalancing could mitigate AR9s problems. Additional equalization is still required. AR9 recognized the problem that a 3 way system has covering the entire aludible range. Most drivers have a useful range of about 2 1/2 octaves to 3 octaves at most (IMO.) Something's gotta give and with AR speakers the region between the woofer and LMR always did one way or another. AR speakers also always had a tendency to a high end rolloff starting with AR3 and it never seemed to be satifactorily resolved to my ears. The modern trend is towards brighter more directional high frequencies. IMO this is a mistake, AR got it right with wide dispersion. AR9 does not have HF dispersion equal to older models as can be seen by the small recess between the tweeter dome and the front faceplate. I think it was a misguided concession to the more modern trend but it was earlier on in the late 1970s and therefore did not fully compete with modern speakers that can sound shrill and require you to sit where X marks the spot.

Tonegen 1259 was patterned after the AR 12" driver I think with Ken's help. It's Vas is nearly twice as great requiring a larger box. With side firing woofers room placement is even more critical for bass response than it usually is for other speakes. Ken positioned Stereophile's test pair in their room using a micrometer :-) I'm not surprised without further optimization of AR9 it came out second best to NHT 3.3's treble, it would have been surprising if it didn't. However, given a choice between the two and knowing how to improve AR9 I would not trade. AR9 when restored (were the comparison speakers restored before auditioning?) it's one of the most potent bass makers I know of, far more capable even with a good 60 wpc amplifier than anything required in my 400 square foot 4000 cubic foot live listening room.

[ligs]

I have been reading this with interest because AR9's were the most expensive speakers I actually bought. Having done some DIY on smaller speakers, I now think one potential problem with AR9 is the wide spread of drivers in the front, especially the LMR and UHR. Unless you are at a certain listening position it is hard to get a focused image. People joke about Bose 901s making piano sound much wider than actual is. In the case of AR9 the piano may sound like it is taller than it actually is:) In terms the AR9's high range, while the measurement shows it extends well into 20k hz and higher. However, the striking of cymbals from AR9s lacks clarity. I did not take the thick acoustic blanket off to see it might help the realism of the highend. In terms of driver technology, I don't think AR used any focused magnetic field, copper shortening ring, ceramic or Kevlar cone materials in its drivers. Which are used widely in many highend speakers of today!

Just my 5 cents.

[Carlspeak]

I have been reading this with interest because AR9's were the most expensive speakers I actually bought. Having done some DIY on smaller speakers, I now think one potential problem with AR9 is the wide spread of drivers in the front, especially the LMR and UHR. Unless you are at a certain listening position it is hard to get a focused image. People joke about Bose 901s making piano sound much wider than actual is. In the case of AR9 the piano may sound like it is taller than it actually is:) In terms the AR9's high range, while the measurement shows it extends well into 20k hz and higher. However, the striking of cymbals from AR9s lacks clarity. I did not take the thick acoustic blanket off to see it might help the realism of the highend. In terms of driver technology, I don't think AR used any focused magnetic field, copper shortening ring, ceramic or Kevlar cone materials in its drivers. Which are used widely in many highend speakers of today!

Just my 5 cents.

A recap (if not already done) might brighten things up a bit.

[ligs]

I sold my AR9's to my coworker and then built a pair of NHT 1259 just to have the low bass! Of course recapping is a viable approach to brighten things up a bit.

Here is my personal attempt to search for speakers with realistic high end reproduction.

[fast_eddie_72]

I've often wondered about the NHTs. Thanks for the insights. Would love to hear a pair.

[soundminded]

From the "for what it's worth" department, the best speaker in the world of the month award for January 2005 goes to.....(fanfare) TA-DA....NHT 3.3.

I've always wondered what AR's bottom line would have looked like if a certain somebody hadn't blown out about a zillion LST tweeters every....xxxx and gotten free replacements

What if that certain someone had bought Cerwin Vega speakers instead. I'm sure this is a very fine speaker and and excellent value but if you get them, be warned by the design engineer, it doesn't matter what part of a room you put them in so long as you adjust their position precisely with a micrometer

[ligs]

I also have to applaud the generosity of AR service department. Upon blowing up 2 AR3a tweeters, AR sent me, free of charge, 2 AR3a/11 midrange drivers:) I kept them but bought 2 AR11 tweeters from a fire sale of a local AR dealer. I then proceeded to convert my 3a's into AR 11's with very happy results! AR did have the most generous replacement policy!

[kkantor]

Steve et al.

I've just dropped-in to agree with almost everything that has been said in this discussion.

My points of contention are small, but then, maybe not.

My "basic" point would be this: The NHT 3.3 has benefited from advances in driver technology, the MTM-type driver arrangement, and its purely functional physical shape. It does not suffer some of the challenges AR had with crossover design and so has less "stuff" to adversely affect the signal getting to the drivers and fewer areas of crossover overlap to cause lobing and other undesirable things.

You've seen the experience of the AR-9 referred-to as one a listener might prefer. I cannot comment on that.

What I can say is that the NHT 3.3 will play sounds that you can't force the AR-9 to reproduce by fooling around with tone controls or an equalizer, so it isn't a matter of flat vs emphasizing one part of the audio spectrum or another. I chalk this up to advances in driver technology and the aging of the AR drivers.

You asked about bass impact. It depends on what you mean by that. The AR-9 seems (to me) to be able to more easily produce that over-pressure sensation you get sitting in a church with a powerful pipe organ. These frequencies are as much felt as heard and it should surprise noone that four of AR's woofers located more or less at the junction of a wall and floor are capable of projecting really extremely loud, almost sub-sonic, clean bass energy into a room.

If I am looking for a someone-has-hit-me-in-the-chest "BAM!" from a speaker, I have to confess to finding the single NHT 3.3 driver entirely up to the task and more convincingly than the AR-9 does.

That was unexpected.

If you look at the driver configuration of the 9, you would think that the 8" would give the impact "sound" while the 12" would give the physical impact. My guess is that the crossover's being so high in the AR-9's bass section means the crossover itself may be reducing the "effective" "BANG!" associated with the "BAM!".

For rolling thunder, though, you have to smile at what the 9 does, almost as a physics trick.

Having said that...

I have to believe that the NHT 3.3 is more accurate in every respect.

After spending a great deal of time with both (more with the 9), I have settled on the NHT 3.3 as my "listening experience of choice," due to its highly, highly articulate nature (having nothing to do with "brightness"). The 3.3 will simply reproduce details in the music that the AR-9 cannot.

I am getting older. My high-frequency hearing is diminishing. If either speaker makes noise above 14k, I can no longer hear it.

You or someone mentioned electrostatic speakers. You know how articulate they are. Human voice, particularly female voice, is amazing on electrostatics. I find the NHT 3.3 to give me an experience as though I am in front of electrostatics, but without the high frequency roll-off of an electrostatic, and without the loss of power in the upper bass registers. In short, I'm saying that the 3.3, to me, sounds like a "perfect electrostatic speaker."

The experience of listening to the 9 and the 3.3s is very, very different. Speaking for myself only, I find it easy to move from listening to an AR-9 to the NHT 3.3 and *impossible* to move the other direction. Well, that is, I used-to. Not long after this listening-experience was shared I relegated the 9s to another room.

Lest you think it is my opinion, only: My wife, on inspecting the 3.3s, asked if I intended to leave "those things" in the living room (with disdain). After hearing them she asked if I had to move them out.

As to the concert-hall experience of the AR-9, I would say, "Yes," I can hear less detail in a marimba from sixty feet away than I can sitting next to it."

Hi, all... I just found this. Many thanks, I am really touched! You all have ears I respect. (I mean, even before I read this....:-).

There is one thing I wanted to say: While the 3.3 was obviously irrelevant to the design of the 9, it is highly likely that there never would have been a 3.3 had the 9 not preceded it. The AR9 was a very, very important speaker design; a breakthrough in many ways.

-k

[harry398]

Id love to hear these one day.

I can say no speaker i have heard does everything tight, to my ears, however the ar9 does the best in the most areas.

The low frequencies are outstanding, however its not a Slam bass.   The ar9lsi does that.     Preference dictates, but as roy stated, loud orchestra/classical....ar9 shines.     The lsi offers some areas more forward than the 9, but overall the AR9 is the clearest, most detailed speaker i have heard and owned.    No 3 way is even close in detail.    This is not a dig on 3 ways, they are great too, just cant match the division of labor a 4 way offers.   The 3a offers great tones, great midrange sounds, but there are all sorts of sounds missing.

Back to Ar9 vs Nht 3.3........carl asked a great  question..     recap?     Both Ar9s i own needed new caps, and tremendous improvement was noticed.   I suspect the nht had poly caps.   The AR needs service to maintain clarity.

 

Amp power also will dictate headroom and ability to create a stellar total presentation.

 

Someday.......