Simple Review of Norh 5.1's

Early B.

Well, after playing music constantly for the past several days to let my Norh 5.1’s break in, I sat down to take a critical listen to them. First, let me say again that I bought them strictly for aesthetic purposes, so I was hoping they would sound at least as good as the Lsi7’s that they replaced. OK, on with the mini review.

My initial impressions were that the Norhs lacked bass extension. What I have realized is that the Norhs put some elbow grease into my system; it seemed like they introduced a final scrubbing cycle to remove the last vestige of muddiness from the background and bass. So what I was hearing with the Lsi7’s was slightly muddled bass. The Norhs absolutely excelled in bringing out minute details. I’m not quite sure if the bass on the Norhs extends lower than the Lsi7’s because I use a sub crossed over around 80 Hz. I doubt it, though.

In fact, I heard stuff in my reference musical selections that I never heard before, especially the strumming of string instruments. I’m also hearing for the first time the different nuances in bass that previously sounded monotone. Nothing dominates; all of the vocals and instruments seem to be in the right place. If anything stands out at all, it’s the cymbals, mainly because they’re so damn distinct (they sound like a real cymbals!).

But I think part of the reason the detail is so prominent is because all of the instruments sound very natural. Another thing the Norhs do exceptionally well is “tame” music. For instance, when playing Anita Baker’s latest CD on the Lsi7’s, it sounded very harsh, so harsh, in fact, that I could hardly bear to listen to it. That’s no fault of the Lsi7's -- it's because the CD was poorly mastered. But when I played the same CD with the Norhs, virtually all of the harshness disappeared and it sounded just as good as a typical redbook CD.

As I mentioned before, the Norhs project a very wide soundstage relative to the Lsi7’s. They are also much more airy. They appear to be a tad more laid back than the Lsi7’s and the vocals are slightly recessed, but the Norhs are more musical (as measured by the amount of toe tapping and head bobbing). Generally, the pace of the Norhs is faster than the Lsi7’s, although on some songs the opposite seems to occur. Both the Norh’s and the Lsi7’s play as loud as one another until they begin to distort (about half way). I expected to Norhs to be able to play louder (they’re freakin’ drums, man), but they didn’t. I don’t care because I don’t like loud music of any kind.

A/B Test Results: While the speakers were breaking in, I rolled the tube in my CD player. I went from the stock Chinese 6N3 tube to a GE 5670. So to determine what difference the tube made, I conducted a quick & dirty A/B test. My friend and I bought the same CD player at the same time, so he brought over his stock CD player to my house so we could compare it against my modded one. No contest. The stock player sounded dull and lifeless compared to mine. Next, we changed out the tube in his CD player and the difference was amazing. The pace quickened, the sound was much more open, and it simply sounded 10x better than the stock unit, but still not quite as good as my modded unit. At first I was a bit skeptical of the difference the mods made, but now I’m glad I got the mods done and I could finally hear the differences.

Final Analysis: The Norhs are phenomenal speakers. At $500 a pair (incl. shipping) for made-to-order speakers in wood or marble, it can’t be beat. I didn’t think I’d say this, but the Norhs, not only sound different from the Lsi7’s, they’re just plain better in virtually every category. That’s saying a lot because I love the sound of the Lsi7’s.

The Norh’s aren’t perfect, of course. I’d like to hear a bit more bass, but perhaps I’m asking too much from a 5 inch speaker. If they err, they could be accused of introducing too much detail. They play the kind of music I like exceptionally well (jazz, female vocals, etc), but I can’t speak to how they perform with various types of hardcore music like rock, rap, metal, etc.

Nevertheless, the Norh 5.1’s have exceeded my expectations and have raised the bar for me in terms of what reference speakers should sound like. Even though it took them 7 weeks to build my speakers (it’s usually a 3 - 4 week process), I’m thoroughly impressed with the speakers. I highly recommend them. In fact, I’m so impressed with them that I’m trying to figure out how I can change out the front end of my HT system with Norh speakers (and I have a pair of RTi10’s and a Csi40 !!).

Lesson learned – I’ll continue to support the niche market of small audio manufacturers such as Norh, Odyssey, SVS, Hsu, Decware, Signal Cable, and many others. The small shops are usually led by an audio maverick who is overtly passionate about his work, they usually have better prices because you’re buying direct from the manufacturer, customer service is often better, the quality is typically very high relative to the price, they are building equipment strictly for the audiophile, you can sometimes talk at length directly to the founder/engineer of the company, they often provide you with lots of great information on their websites, and they have greater potential to build custom made items.

Forgot to mention my gear -- Musical Fidelity A3CR pre amp, Odyssey Stratos Amp, Bada tube CD player, Onix Rocket subwoofer, Monster PowerCenter 3600, Audioquest Mammoth speaker cables, Audioquest Corals and Kimber Heros.

steveinaz

Great review bud, interesting speaker.

jdhdiggs

Yup, interesting... One condradictory thing (to me at least) was stating the the Norh's were more detailed but that they glossed over a CD's recorded failings. Those two things seem contradictory. Although, rereading your post, wouldit be fair to say that the bass on the Norh's is more detailed and the tweet on the 7's was more detailed?

jmierzur

Originally posted by Early B.
Both the Norh’s and the Lsi7’s play as loud as one another until they begin to distort (about half way).

I hope these are not the same speakers I just bought from you.:D Maybe you should substitute the Norhs for the 7's when you ship them.

And as jdhdiggs mentioned, why would a 'bad' recording sound better with the Norhs?? Any thoughts as you have had the two side by side.

kingtut

Early, which Onyx subwoofer model do you have? How is it compared to the SVS that you have?

Early B.

why would a 'bad' recording sound better with the Norhs??

Hell if I know. Just reporting what I heard. It could have been a combination of the speakers and the new tube in the CD, but whatever it was, I will tell you that the difference was quite dramatic.

Early, which Onyx subwoofer model do you have? How is it compared to the SVS that you have?

I have the UFW-10. There's no comparison -- two different animals. I use the Onix for music only, so it doesn't need to go as low as my SVS -- the HT sub. Plus, it's smaller and it's a sealed box. Even sounds different and doesn't rattle the walls like the SVS.

Joey_V

Did you A/B both the Norh and the LSi7? If not, I find it hard to believe that you can still recall "exactly" how the LSi7s WOULD fair against the norhs. It is a well established fact that we dont have much of an auditory memory - especially when listening critically.

So much plays into a speaker comparison.

Angle of the speakers, the height of the tweeter, the degree to which the speaker is tilted (up or down), the distance between the pair, the wall, and the listener, etc...

So, if the two weren't A/Bed directly, I would have to say that audio memory is among the confounding variables in this study. Simply put, there are too many extraneous variables that weren't taken into account in the review... it is too much based on subjective "gut" instinct and feel - rather than on actual 1 on 1 listening.

No doubt that the norhs are good speakers - perhaps even great for some ears... however, comparing something against another without proper a/b testing is, in my opinion, a moot point. I would rather have seen you not list the lsi7 in "comparison" and just proceed on to list why you like the norhs.

Not picking a fight, dont get me wrong. I just dont understand how two speakers can be compared without both being at the same room, at the same time, and under the same conditions.

Early B.

I just dont understand how two speakers can be compared without both being at the same room, at the same time, and under the same conditions

Yeah -- they were in the same room on the same day at the same time under the same conditions with the same gear and the same music using the same ears.

My intent was not to try and conduct a scientific review. I don't care about that. That's why I called this thread "a simple review." I compared these speakers because 1) I happen to have both pair at the same time; and 2) many folks on this forum are familiar with the Lsi7's, so comparing the two would seem more meaningful. So IMHO, on my gear, in my room, with my ears, I preferred the Norhs. As I said before, the Lsi7's are awesome speakers. Nearly everyone who has a pair seems to agree.

Joey_V

Ah... as long as the two speakers were in the room were in the same room when the comparison was done, I dont have any qualms with the review.

I just couldnt tell when I read your review if the two were A/Bed together - maybe I just read it too fast and missed it.

I never questioned your comparing the norh to the lsi7, I only questioned whether they were A/Bed during the review itself.

steveinaz

EARLY

You forgot to tell them you weren't being paid for this review. Sheesh.

Folks, reviews are by nature a subjective matter; if you don't like the outcome, so what? Early has his listening preferences, and you have yours--he's just communicating what he observed.

People tell me all the time that Athena's suck. Thats fine, I like them and thats all that really matters isn't it?

dragon1952

Regardless of whether they were A/B'ed or not, if you are extremely familiar with a specific CD I think you can certainly tell if you hear something in it you're not used to hearing. I had the same sensation when I swapped out my old speaker cables with my new ones. I used to hear something out of the left speaker that I knew was an instrument, a 'tinkly' percussion instrument (that's what I call them anyway) like a brush stroke on a cymbal or maybe soft chimes, and with the old speaker cables it almost sounded like static or something. I'd be sitting there going 'What the hell is that noise?" With the new cables I'm listening to the same CD and all of a sudden I realize "Hey! It doesn't sound like static...I can actually hear it clearly as an instrument"
It's like when you're playing with your speaker positioning and hear a significant difference by slightly moving them side to side an inch or toeing them in or out slightly.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe our audiotory memory is as bad as some people claim :rolleyes:
Especially with sounds we are extremely familiar with.

Early B.

Well said, dragon. To test out changes in my system, I use four different CDs -- same tracks. I am VERY familiar with every nuance of these tracks, so if something sounds differently, I'm gonna notice it. My wife is sick of hearing the same tracks over and over, but that's how I know it's better, worse, or just different. In the process, I'm honing my skills as a music listener.

Please understand where I'm coming from -- three years ago I didn't own a single music CD!! Once I started playing music CDs, it was on a boom box. I started participating on this forum about a year ago. At that time I had RTi38's up front, a BIC America center channel, an Onkyo 500 receiver, and some cheap surrounds. Of course I still have a lot to learn and discover about HT and 2-channel audio, but so far I've enjoy the schooling. My biggest teacher has been this forum.

The key to this audio stuff is experimentation. You gotta try new things. My next adventure is to change out my RTi10's. I'm trying to find a pair of new or used speakers that sound even better than the 10's in the same price category. I have no real need to change them because the 10's sound great, but I'm driven by the need to find something greater (without breaking the bank).

Thanks for letting me ramble on....

jdhdiggs

I think the tubes are what fixed the bad recording which would make all your observations consistant... Just add another speaker listen to-do on the list...

Joey_V

Scientifically, humans have insufficient auditory memory when being critical. Unless you're a positive anomaly by which, for some reason, your auditory memory is actually good.

There is a reason why scientists have figured why auditory retention is clumped under short term memory - no matter how well you think you know the piece, the fact of the matter is, you lose most auditory resolution within 10 seconds and pretty much everything within 30 seconds.

Hence, as I said earlier, the A/B is the BEST and ONLY way to compare two speakers.

It doesnt matter if one thinks one knows it, the fact is, unless one's ears are like superman's and one's brain is twice that of einstein and mozart combined, there is no way one can justifiably say that one is familiar enough with the nuances to be able to distinguish it between two temporaly separated speaker tests.

dragon1952

Yeah....after listening to a CD 100 times and hearing a sound that sounds like static and then, all of a sudden after changing speaker cables, it becomes a distinguishable sound means I actually really heard it as a distinguishable sound the first hundred times but just 'forgot'. :rolleyes: Doh! I hate it when that happens!

unless one's ears are like superman's and one's brain is twice that of einstein and mozart combined,

BTW, thanks for the compliment! :cool:

dragon1952

the fact of the matter is, you lose most auditory resolution within 10 seconds and pretty much everything within 30 seconds.

That probably explains why I forget everything my wife tells me to do!

Early B.

you lose most auditory resolution within 10 seconds and pretty much everything within 30 seconds.

Not true at all. Sounds pretty scientific, but that doesn't jive with practical experience. This statement is also inconsistent with your premise -- you couldn't even conduct an A/B test if that statement was valid.

Dennis Gardner

If auditory retention was short term, you couldn't distinguish who a particular singer was only what song it was by the words. You couldn't tell who was on the phone until they told you their name.

A sax would sound the same to you as the trumpet just did an hour ago playing the same note.

Someone shoot me for buying 1000s of cds and albums throughout the years, since I only recall how they sound for 10 seconds, I would have only needed one to listen to, since it is brand new each time.:D

dragon1952

Great points from both!

And....what would be the point of experimenting with different speaker placements. If our auditory memory was that short, we wouldn't be able to remember what the speakers sounded like in their previous position so what's the use in changing them?
And what's the use of upgrading equipment? You wouldn't know if the new equipment sounded better because you would have forgot what the original equipment sounded like!

Joey_V

Go to pubmed and do a search on articles regarding auditory memory.

I dont want to argue so I'll stop at that. I just dont trust speaker comparos without A/B testing. There is waaaay too much subjectivity and too much emphasis on unfounded things (such as, "I never heard those before" when in fact you heard it before but never took the time to "note" that you did hear it before). Too much subjectivity isnt something I can trust.

Of course, Early B already said he did an A/B test in this particular occassion - so I have nothing against his review of the norhs.

Lastly, there is a BIG difference between being able to recognize your wife's voice and listening for nuances in a record.. I could almost laugh.

When you listen to a record and you hear a nuance or a change in pitch, this is stored as Sensory Memory in the brain. This is VERY short lasting - perhaps about 300ms (think of why at Tweeter or at audio stores, they HAVE an A/B switcher).

A SMALL part is stored in Short Term Memory, but dont even think that you can get the nuances in here - its more of the general sound of the song (ever wonder why it's so hard to even think of a song's beat or what someone told you a few seconds ago?).

Then, if this is LINKED to an emotion or a feeling (something concrete), THEN it is stored in Long Term Memory (insert WIFE VOICE here).

If you guys dont believe me, try this - have someone say a ten numbers to you... now, dont EVEN think about what he/she just said. Wait a few seconds... perhaps 20 seconds. Then, try to recall WHAT he/she said and the EXACT pitch at which he/she said the numbers. Not possible.

You can even tell yourself the numbers, and you still wont recall it after 20 seconds. I bet you wont even know half of the numbers you just mentioned 20 seconds earlier.

No one can.

It's a scientific fact that our auditory memory sucks. Those who say it doesnt and that they can recall every (if not most) nuances and the pitch at which they were played back in a previous speaker (more than 30 seconds ago) is over-exaggerating.

Dennis Gardner

Originally posted by Joey_V


When you listen to a record and you hear a nuance or a change in pitch, this is stored as Sensory Memory in the brain. This is VERY short lasting - perhaps about 300ms (think of why at Tweeter or at audio stores, they HAVE an A/B switcher).

If you have heard this change enough times to know how it should sound, then its not in short term memory anymore.

This is why you critically listen to a well known passage from a well known source for the nuance that is part of your long term memory in order to make a comparison.

I concur that you can't listen for a couple of minutes to new material and then switch over to another speaker and recall this passage in detail. I have rarely heard of critical listeners making this comparison done in this manner. They always compare well known material on their reference system. This is how Early was making his comparison. It was on reference material on his reference system, not over at a buddies place and just decided to swap new speakers into an unknown setup on a whim.


No argument on this end either, I just gave him the benefit of knowing his system and reference material by heart so that he could justify his findings.

I'm done,

DG

dorokusai

It's a neat speaker, have fun.

Joey_V

No doubt! I'm sure the norhs are nice speakers. I would like to hear one someday.