Picked up some NHT SuperOnes and although not 100%, I'm finding them delightful.

The SuperOne uses a soft dome tweeter and paper woofer.

The 1.3 uses a composite (polycone perhaps?) woofer, but retains the soft dome tweeter.

The 1.5 uses the composite woofer as well, but swaps to a metal dome tweeter as supplied in the upper-range models, re: 2.5, 3.3, etc.

As I already own a pair of NHT subwoofers, and am contemplating a downsizing in the near future, I will not be pursuing anything bigger than a pair of 1.5s.

My question is whether anyone has an opinion on the paper vs. composite cone of the NHT SuperOne vs. 1.3?

And much more important to me, the soft dome vs. metal dome.

Although I enjoy the metal domes in my Thiels and rare-ish Baltek 30s, and my friend's Mission 750LEs, I admit I can easily me fatigued by them- the reason for my switch to B&K amplification.

Your opinions are much appreciated.
__________________

Don't know much about NHT but I can comment on the cone and dome materials. Composite cones sound metallic and less organic than graphite paper cones. I'm not a fan of pure paper cones as I find them to be shouty. Dome tweeters and mids are in favor over here. I've heard treated silk domes in numerous ADS offerings and thought them to be somewhat dull and lifeless. Metal domes like the JBL 044t and 034 tweeters have the detail I prefer and go a long way to achieving the forward sound I like. (I'm a West Coaster.) Beryllium domes are beyond the scope of your question but they are my preferred choice because of Be's superior acoustic properties. Be is used in military and ultrasonic applications.

i generally prefer a soft dome, but there are exceptions like the Yamaha NS-1000 which has one of the finest and sweetest sounding tweeters going. then again, of the speakers with metal domed tweeters i've heard, none were in the same league as the NS-1000. generally speaking, soft domes can hit the sweet spot with less engineering and expense, but a properly executed metal dome will have greater potential for better sound.

Interesting take on things, Sam.

Agreed the beryllium drivers are probably the best one can own. I'd like to build some Be domed speakers some day. I've read much about the material online and in regards to speaker building.


Your comment on the treated silk domes in ADS offerings as somewhat dull and lifeless is not at all what I find- actually turned down the tweeter pot on my L1230s. And JBL's 034 tweeters were fatiguing and at times painful for me to listen to.

But that's me- a decidedly "East coast" fella.

Always glad to hear your review/opinion though.

I found any metal dome tweets I've heard to require me to switch to warm sounding amps- the Balteks, Thiels, ect.


Maybe I should stick with the soft domes....



Your take on composite cones sounding metallic and less organic sounds correct. Same for the comment on graphite paper cones.

But I've not found pure paper cones to be shouty. I wonder why?

Don't get me wrong, I like the East Coast tubey warm sound and I won't fall into the trap by saying one Coast is better than the other. However, I must admit my personal preference is for the forward West Coast sound so it is inevitable my bias will come through.

Beryllium drivers are found in some utlra high end speaker systems so I am sold! Regarding silk domes, I've also heard the Yamaha NS-670 silk domes and compared to the NS-200M's titanium domes, they are dull and lifeless. Metal domes will sound much better than silks with modern fast amps.

Paper cone drivers like the HPM-100 and L-100 Century are the basis for my comment and even for me, those speakers are way too bright. In fact, I have to turn the controls all the way down to tame the beasts. I also have a pair of early seventies Soundcraftsmen Lancers with paper woofers that are sometimes a tad bright.

The brightness of paper is understandable because the contemporary amps available at the time were not all that fast or accurate. Speaker brightness tended to help seventies amps sound more dynamic. A famous example is the rather dull Pioneer SX-1980 coming alive with HPM-100's. Pair the HPM-100 with an amp with good HF clarity and the sound is intolerable.

As always, very good points, Sam.

I've never heard any NHT products so my opinions are probably quite a bit off tangent here but I have heard some Be domes including a lengthy session with some Usher "Tiny Dancers" that utilize Be tweeters and while they sounded good I didn't think the sound justified the $2500 a pair price tag.

If you've studied up on Be in speaker design you know that while speakers such as the NS-1000s certainly sound very good it is the inherent difficulty in manufacturing Be domes and the speakers subsequent rarity that helps keep their prices so high. There is a pair of NS-1000s in the Seattle area, for instance, that have been hovering around $900-$1000 for the pair for many months. It will be a collector of rare speakers, not necessarily an audiophile, that eventually takes these home.

All of that said I think I'll throw my hat in the soft dome ring for most applications and have heard treated silk sound very lifelike without being fatiguing or overly bright.

If I'm not wrong the designer of the Tiny Dancers is a member of this group. I'm sure he would discuss the tweeters with you. I myself love silk domes. In all the speakers I have designed and built I always use Morels which area very fast and very life like tweeter that uses a silk dome.

From one of the reviewers at audioreview.com. Best explanation I have found why Be is so good.

"A form made out of copper is created for the tweeter and midrange domes. Then an extremely thin layer of molten beryllium is vapor deposited onto the copper form. The copper form with beryllium layer are then heated to the point where the copper melts away (it has a lower melting temperature than beryllium). Now what's left is a super rigid yet ulta-lightweight dome. In fact the tweeter dome weighs less than one petal of a small sweetheart rose! The low mass can be made to change direction (vibrate to create sound) with less effort, and yet the rigidity of the berillium prevents it from changing shape and causing unwanted vibrations even under high decible demands. It's a very expensive process..."