Well, I got the prism 5.2's the other day & have been running them in on my HT system. My first impression out of the box is that they are pretty small, only about 30 inches tall. The tweeter is about 24 inches from the floor. So, when you sit down, the tweeter is about the same height as your shoulders, but it is aimed up toward your ears. 2nd impression - they are VERY nicely finished - nOrh has always had outstanding wood finishes & these are no exception. If you have ever seen the Studio series from Monitor Audio, you have an idea of how good these look (Studio series, NOT the Silver series - the silver series has a mediocre finish at best compared to the nOhrs). My wife really likes the looks of the 5.2's, but part of that is their compactness, I am sure.
Ok, so how do they sound? Well, right out of the box they did not sound all that good - mids were muddy and unclear & the highs were slightly bright. So I ran them in for a while with some loud bass heavy music for about 15 hours. After that I took them & hooked them up to my Bryston B-60 (I wanted to hear how they would sound with a more modestly powered amp than the 3b-st in my HT setup). Slapped on some Holly Cole & wow, big improvement. Vocals were warm and creamy smooth, with tremendous imaging. Imaging was one area I was worried that the 5.2's would not be able to keep up with the 4.0's because of the difference in design. But they actually imaged a bit better, IMO. The lateral imaging was about the same on both speakers, but image with more depth than the 4.0's, which are more forward. The 5.2's are also warmer sounding than the 4.0s in the mids, and have lower bass extension too. They are not quite as detailed as the 4.0's in the mids, but are actually a better speaker for use with receivers or inexpensive CD players because of this. That creamy smooth midrange just plays music, man. The highs are about the same on both speakers, which is to say excellent for a speaker in the $1000 & under price range.
Overall, I like the 4.0's for HT better due to their more forward nature and more detailed mids, but I like the 5.2's better for 2 channel music, especially in a situation where space is at a premium & you do not want the speakers themselved to dominate the room. While they will never be "audiophile" speakers because they are so short, if you do sit down and listen to them, they have a big sound, good bass detail, smooth mids, and detailed non-fatiguing highs with very good imaging and soundstaging (but it is a short soundstage). They are very musically satisfying and will fill up a room quite nicely. Also, you don't really need a sub with them, unless you want a more bass below 45 hz or so. They have better bass than the Drum 5.1 from nOrh.
Well, that is the preliminary report, I will hook them up later this week to the HT & put them through their paces with some more movies & see how they do.
Revisions:
Well, I did hook them up to the HT and they did a quite good job for the $$ that they sell for. If you raise them up about 6 inches or so, they sound wonderful for HT. Otherwise they are too short to really "connect" with the center channel.
Also, since my original review on the 5.2's was with an all solid state system, I have to change my impressions of them vs. the 4.0 in a 2 channel system. With tubes, the 4.0's image better and are more "real" sounding. The 5.2's have better bass and are smoother sounding. For an all solid state system for music, I think the 5.2's are a better match than the 4.0's, especially if all you have is $500 & not enough money for a quality sub. But the 4.0's are more revealing and neutral - they do much better in a "high end" system, especially with a quality sub. And the 4.0's are still the king when it comes to a 5.1 HT setup. Except for an all Meridian system, the 4.0's are the best HT package I have heard. Soon though, I will get to hear a 7.2 surround sound setup w/marble 9.0's all around, so maybe they will displace the 4.0's as bets HT speaker I have heard. . . .
