Has anyone heard the Yamaha NS 2000

I am perhaps a bit late on this thread but this is my short experience with them. I have owned them for 18 month but used them only for a week so my comment should be viewed with this in mind. When I bought them the woofers required new foam rubber which was very hard to come by.

Electrostatics has been my preference for more than 30 years. Among those that I have used are ESL 57 single and stacked, Audiostatic, Quad 63, STAX ESL-6 and Beveridge 2SW2. I still have the STAX and the Bevs. What I appreciate with these kind of speakers are their coherency and speed.

The Bevs went on strike some 5 years ago (the power amps) which was when I bought a pair of NS-1000M. Eventually I changed all the filter components and added a magnet to each woofer. Everything improved so much that I was rather content. I had heard about the NS-2000 and set my mind to getting a pair and I am glad I did! In my mind this speaker is in an entirely different class.

These are my first impressions in comparison with NS-1000 and other box speakers that I have heard: much lower distortion, so very clean, very even — no register sticks out, very revealing of the quality of the other components that you are using, the low register is such a joy — clean and rich and at the same time with remarkably control, effortless dynamics — not as good but approaching good horn systems, speed is very close to high quality electrostatics, coherency is very good but not as good as very good electrostatics and finally very musical with proper electronics.

The joy of listening is a bit like when I got my first pair of ESL-57 or when I connected the Futterman OTL H3AA to the Quad speakers. The TV has been on only occasionally since NS-2000 first lit up.

I urge all that have the means to get a pair.

I owned a pair of NS2000's for several years. Posssible THE most accurate loudspeaker I have owned (and I have had many). However, it was not quite musical enough for me in the end. As an evaluation tool for associated companents, I suspect it would have few peers, even among todays more "modern" designs. If you value absolute neutrality and accuracy of reproduction, these are the speakers to own. Be aware though, that anything connected to them with be revealed ruthlessly - "warts and all". Beautiful construction with the Pear Wood cabinetry and the croosvers are an absolute work of art. I still hanker after them occasionaly ...

The NS-2000 eliminated several small subjective issues in home use with the NS-1000. The original NS-1000M was specifically designed to be used near a [heavily] acoustically treated wall or on a mixing stand for studio use and therefore when used radiating into a 4pi space will exibit loss in bass. The paper woofer was excellent and remarkably clean even at subsonic frequencies. The NS-2000 in contrast was designed for use in the home and a larger enviroment with [flat] bass response in a 4pi space on its optional stands. The crossover was physically re-aranged so that the inductors would not crosstalk. The drivers were improved and response/distortion flattened even more for a very realistic soundstage. How real they can get is disturbing.

There is no comparison between this speaker and B&W. After listening to these, B&W top line sounds boxy and colored. I was expecting something amazing with ESLs but they were a downgrade and once again lost to the NS-1000.

Opposed to common belief, electrostatics do use crossovers just as traditional dynamic transducers to achieve a better transfer magnitude. ESLs do tend to have a problem with ringing creative false texture and detail. When measuring an ESL alongside even the NS-1000M on a 0 to -45dB scale, the harmonic distorion of the NS-1000 is so low it does not even register; at its highest point is still lower than the lowest distortion point of a Wilson Audio Watt-Puppy. Example; the ESL63 has over 20 decibels louder distortion than the original NS-1000.

I have not heard the Yamaha, but I have heard (and own) some very good dynamic powered monitors. My main system, however, is electrostatic.
Mass, single ended drive, and crossovers, still limit what dynamics can achieve, however, In recent years much progress has been made in these small dynamic monitors and mine are very clear and enjoyable on their own terms, especially listening to popular (i.e. studio) recordings, however, as the music becomes more complex (try a piano) and if the recordings are made in "real" space, the electrostats simply provide much more texture and information, despite their lack of "impact" and loudness limitations. I hope this helps, but as you know, there is no substitute for hearing them for yourself.