To catch up to current times, I had decided to try some Zu DW based on the sound signature described by others; I also found a very good deal on some Salk HT3 that I know based on hearing many times in a close friends system.
Here’s my pics post from Sept. I’ll post some feedback shortly.
Catching this thread up to the end of October. Here is my feedback on listening over the last 6-8 weeks.
Speaker Feedback:
NHT 3.3 - dynamic, clear bass to 20hz, some of the best imaging I’ve heard of any speaker; top can be a bit forward on certain songs, and metal dome tweeter can be fatiguing if played at volume for extended periods. Biggest issue for me: Have to pull off wall to get soundstage depth I like (depth slightly better than Salk if well off wall), but lose all bottom end when doing so.
Salk HT3 - most refined of the 3, and nice overall soundstage, but not quite the 3D front to back of the NHTs; good imaging, but NHT is a little better micro definition. I do think the ribbon tweeter is leaps / bounds better sounding than other two, and this speaker has the tightest bass/mid bass in the 40-200Hz region. Can listen for hours with no fatigue.
Zu Omen DW - very dynamic, and flat out rock; top end most forward of the 3; small changes are very noticeable; I do notice a slight resonance ; would need a Subwoofer, and maybe some reinforcement/no-Rez and copper cap to get tweeter to lay back a bit. Also, I think a nice tube amp would be interesting to hear with this speaker.
Overall, I’m still kinda torn. I took the Zu to my friends that has a nice tube amp for some listening with that setup. I’m loving the Salk ribbon sound, which is more refined and organic than the others. But I’m still missing the pinpoint imaging and depth of soundstage I get from the NHTs off the wall. For now, I’m using some of the Cardas calcs for positioning and living with the Salks - at least for the next several months. This will allow me to “ween” myself off the NHT sound signature, and what I hope will allow an unbiased view (after living with the NHT FIG sound for 25 years). I did add a set of Iconoclast speaker wires from mono blocks to Salks last week (thanks again @RonP) and it’s an improvement in micro resolution over the Belden 1313 wire I was using.
Here’s a recent pic of the Salks position:
Looking forward to continued listening! The fact I’m now working from home, means I can walk from my office during breaks and listen a bit to relax during the day.
My heavens Senna, that’s beautiful! What brand/model diffusers are those? Very sharp.
Thank you. Front diffusion is a combination of GIK alpha series behind speakers, and a custom QRD center that I provided specs for a friend to create, then I sprayed to match the room.
I’m using the GIK Alpha 6a’s behind my main speakers and love how they make the room sound! Great choice!
Also, I’m sharing power/wiring - I do believe connections can make a difference, but I’ve not been willing to spend too much, rather looking for best value/performance- I used Signal cable all throughout for about 10 years, before changing some things over the last year to Belden. The Iconoclast speaker cable was my first real upgrade on wiring.
2 Dedicated 20 amp runs to room
What a wonderful storyline! I love reading about the progression one goes through with their system.
My ever so slightly smaller NHT 2.9’s came with recommendations of 4" to 12" from the wall. I usually had best results around the 8" to 10" mark. Also, my 2.9’s were never fatiguing. It kind of makes me cringe when I hear people say that metal dome tweeters are bright or fatiguing. More often than not it has to do with the system/cable synergy upstream. If the tweeter material is implemented properly, internal resonances and damping taken care of, voicing and crossover tuning is all done properly, a metal dome, soft dome, textile dome, horn loaded, etc, etc should not be fatiguing. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case, but those NHT tweeters are very well designed and do sound extremely good.
And speaking of your NHT’s, you may want to try removing them from the room completely. Having two idle 12" woofers sitting in the corners of the room like that might be absorbing some of the bass and even making it a bit “sloppy” so to speak due to resonances within the NHT cones and the enclosures. Removing those portable black shiny walls from the room might also help clean up the imaging and sound stage of the Stalk’s some as they might be defeating the purpose of your room treatments on that front wall behind the speakers.
Just some friendly suggestions.
I agree @Chops I still have a set of 2.9s (at my sisters) and usually used them 8-10” off the wall when they were my primary speakers. Both the 3.3 and 2.9 were never fatiguing to me when I used them in the recommended settings. I used 2.5s from 1994-2004, then moved to 2.9s from 2004-2016, I got the 3.3s in 2016 and move the 2.9s to my sisters. It was only when I pulled the 3.3 off the wall by 10” or more that I started to notice things. I was 1/2 tempted to go get my 2.9s and augment with a sub, but I think it’s time to move on and keep the NHTs for 2nd systems (or at family’s).
BTW - I have moved them and have the Salks as the only speakers. The pic I posted was when I was still finalizing placement. I’ve also swapped out the GAIAs from the NHTs and added to the Salks.
It is a slippery slop, but I’ve been tempted to consider GR Research or some Magnepans as well. I’ve had entry Maggie’s in the past and loved them, however, they didn’t quite satisfy in the dynamics. All these trade offs; I am still happy that I’m finally to the point any small tweak is fairly noticeable.
Thanks again for all the suggestions - please keep them coming as I love to consider ways to improve.
Mike
You have some awesome current delivery from your amps. I’m curious if you ran the Maggies with your Pass amps? I ask because i just got to listen to a friend’s small office system in which he has LRS speakers with one sub, driven by an XA25 and the sound was much better (and painfully loud) than I expected from a $650 pair of speakers.
You know - that’s a great call out. When I had mine, I ran them off my Adcom. Not knocking the Adcom, but I put it back in the chain recently just to see the difference and it produced a thin sound will little dimension compared to the XA monos. I just need to borrow/demo some Maggie’s, or something like @Chops SL3s and the XAs may also match fairly well.
Yeah, just like me, my 2.9’s are at my brother’s for safe storage, or if he wants to ever use them.
GR Research (Danny Richie) is a great, friendly guy and definitely creates some fabulous sounding speakers. They’re just about as good as any planar design out there, but with great dynamics as well. I love my Martin Logan’s, but they still don’t have that certain “magic” in the midrange like good Magnepan’s do, but the ML’s have greater dynamics. Still, if it weren’t for all of our kitties and their razor sharp claws, I would most likely have a pair of Maggie’s here instead of the ML’s.
Years ago, I too had an Adcom GFA-555 MkII. While it had ample power, it did lack body and dimension as you said. and foolish me, I only owned my pair of brand new Monitor Audio Silver RS6 towers for a month because I thought they were the cause of the brightness I was getting. Had I known better at the time, I would have kept them and ditched the Adcom and gone with another Aragon 2004 Mk II that I had sold prior to the Adcom. Oh well.
Great story on your evolving 2 channel system…
,
If you are looking for dynamics, pinpoint precision imaging, along with
a “see through” soundstage…Take a look at these …
The 948’s never fail to amaze me…love 'em…
Happy journey trails friend
Forgot to include saying great depth of image front to back
of soundstage…
Was that a Nakamichi CD changer in the photo?
Good eye - It was an old CDC-300 CD changer (holds 200 disks) that I purchased in the 90s - it was a rebranded Sony changer. It mainly served to hold my CDs (gave away jewel cases) and could play for easy listening, or remove and use the Music Hall. I still have it today, however, I’ve not used it on over 2 years.
Just a small update: I was able to spend a bit of time this weekend making some speaker adjustments with the Iconoclast OFC speaker wire and Salks. The week prior I had simply swapped wire, but did not have the time to make adjustments. With some simple toe adjustments, I now have better separation (I noticed some immediately last week), but now have tightened the imaging up quit a bit on the edges of my soundstage- this was the one thing I loved about the NHTs; so with about 2 hours of fiddling, I now have the Salks almost there.
I so envy your space. My space is most definitely my limiter but I try very hard to not want what I don’t have. 
Try the BAV XLR for a very nice upgrade to the 1800F that won’t break the bank. I ran the 1800F for years, then tried the Iconoclast Gen2 XLR but couldn’t accommodate the bend radius in my setup so I tried the BAV and didn’t lose enough to right home about but BAV is a clear and distinct upgrade over the 1800F.
You’ve got the space for Danny’s largest NX-exotica I believe it called. I would build them in a heartbeat if I had the room to support them.
An absolute beaut of a system!
Senna you have an absolutely wonderful set up !
