Are NHT VT2.4's harsh, or is it just me?

I agree with you on the newer metal tweeters . . . but you should listen to the older, soft-dome NHT models. Still EXTREMELY revealing, but not harsh.

I have heard the older NHTs as well...and granted the soft dome is an improvement...but I am still not convinced of their "Focused Geometry" slanted baffle...the soundstage never gets outside of the speaker...the imaging between the speakers is decent..but they end up sounding small and closed in...

Maybe it was the electronics you heard them with . . . . on good recordings, my 2.3As throw a wall-to-wall soundstage, even with the TV in the back of the speaker plane. (Now IMAGING is compromised by the TV, but not soundstage width).

Pop in the latest Enya CD and you'll SWEAR that the rear speakers are active . . . .

However, they don't throw a "fake" big soundstage like some speakers do. If the recording is small and closed in, then the speakers sound small and closed in, too.

They also have somewhat of a design flaw . . . in the floorstanders, the driver layout puts the tweeters well below ear level for most people's seated listening position. I raised mine up 8 inches off the floor, so that the tweeters are where they're supposed to be -- BIG difference.

Paradigm Studio 20...and I used my favorite reference quality recording..."Darkside of the Moon"...which is known to bring out the best (or worst) characteristics of a speaker...and in terms of "out of box" imaging...the 1.5 was clearly behind the other two...although the Paradigm and the MA are by no means perfect...they did outperform the NHT in this regard...during the familiar alarm clock sequence...the speakers never vanished...I did like their sealed enclosed bass though...wish more companies would still use it...