NHT 3.3 or von Scheikert VR4

The history of the NHT's is linked to AR in the "Glory Days".

The NHT side firing woofers saw their beginning in the AR9's
which had 2 x 12" per cabinet.  Killer New England sound for the period.  Played them many years. Many amps, Coda 10, Aragon 4004 MKII, Clayton Audio M70 Mono's, Audion Tube, Alan Kimmel OTL's, Audio Valve Challenger's and Mac MC240's.  Killer Rock and Roll and Classical music.

Owned the VR4's till present great sound Jazz and Female vocals non box sound, incredible bass for 2 x 8 per cabinet.

Those Class A Coda's in vertical Bi-Amp provided the deepest, snappiest and tightest bass I've heard and the AR9's driven to ear damaging volumes.

The NHT 3.3 was a consideration before I bought the VR4's.
Many good reviews on them both.

I discovered Custom Burgess/Kimmel modded DHT SET's
#10, 801A, 45,46, 2A3, 300B and 845 on my Altec modded A7 500 VOTT's and Valencias with Zu Method sub and Altec Rear Loaded Corner Horn 604D (center channel) active
x-over and never looked back.

Gave my son the VR4's and an 845 amp, my grandson now has my aging '79 AR9's(modded and new surrounds).

I'm not sure how on Earth anyone can claim the 3.3 to be a 'cheesy' speaker...it's anything but.

The 3.3's, with the proper setup, are some of the most spectacular sounding speakers you can find (dollar for dollar, especially nowadays).

I've never heard the VS 4's and I'm sure they're great, but I can assure you that if I had the space, the 3.3's would likely have a home with me.

If you want more extensive description of my thoughts on the 3.3's, look up the posting comparing the 3.3's to the Mirage M1's.

Many ppl concur with my thoughts.

I heard both and prefer the Schweikert speakers. But, the VR4 was being powered by White/Llanno amps, and the 3.3 was powered by Pioneer Reference. I liked both speakers enough nevertheless.

The thing that does it for me is that the VR4SE uses the new dual concentric tweeter. It is the one of the few dome tweeters I can tolerate.

The NHT uses a metal dome; drove me nuts after a few minutes.

Absolutely agree on the awkward and narrow footprint, but that's where my agreement ends as far as the construction of the speakers go. Sound pretty spectacular in my friend's system, and I'm not even an SS fan. Never heard the VR4's though (as I said). Maybe I ought to!

Marco

Jax2: NHT 3.3 are unstable and tippy (too narrow of a footprint). They are braced by metal feet which, IMO are not well-integrated into the design. They don't have the refinement of sound like the VR4. NHT are adequate for Home Theatre, but not a high quality, 2 channel audio system.

Timo - you can't be serious....or else you have not seen a pair of 3.3's up close and personal. They are anything but 'cheesy' IMHO. I have no experience with the rest of their line to speculate as to whether you may be referring to NHT's in general and not specifically to the 3.3. Would you elaborate on that one?

Marco

VR4, better built, better sound. To me NHTs are a bit cheesy.

No experience with the Von Schweikert, but have heard the 3.3's extensively in a good friends high-powered SS Levinson system. They have some of the deepest, cleanest bass I've ever heard in his configuration (or any other for that matter). Very dynamic, fast and detailed. I do believe they would need some muscle behind them. Very large, heavy and teutonic in appearence. Side firing woofers reqire some room to breath. Definitely a full range sound with nice balance...perhaps a bit heavy in the lows, but I'm just not used to hearing that kind of bass being a SET/tube guy.

Marco