[Saturn94]

Other than the obvious cosmetic, design, and price differences, is there a difference in performance and sound (I noticed they measure about the same and share the same mid/tweeter?)?  Is the HT2-TL just a newer model designed to have HT3 performance at a lower cost?

Thanks.

[jsalk]

The HT3's play about 5Hz deeper and the W18 only does midrange duty.  The sensitivity is lower and they require a good deal of power to perform their best.

The HT2-TL's do not play quite as deep, but need less power as they are more sensitive.  The dual W18's share the load, but play midbass and bass in addition to midrange.

So the W18 is really not working very hard in the HT3's and would have lower distortion levels.  The woofer will also be capable of moving more air (there is no subsitute for displacement).

Both do a good job of creating the illusion that the performers are in the room with you.  The HT3's carry this illusion through the deep bass regions as well.

I hope that helps.

- Jim

[Saturn94]

The HT3's play about 5Hz deeper and the W18 only does midrange duty.  The sensitivity is lower and they require a good deal of power to perform their best.

The HT2-TL's do not play quite as deep, but need less power as they are more sensitive.  The dual W18's share the load, but play midbass and bass in addition to midrange.

So the W18 is really not working very hard in the HT3's and would have lower distortion levels.  The woofer will also be capable of moving more air (there is no subsitute for displacement).

Both do a good job of creating the illusion that the performers are in the room with you.  The HT3's carry this illusion through the deep bass regions as well.

I hope that helps.

- Jim

Thanks Jim.  Your responses are always clear and very helpful.

So if I'm going to use a sub (SVS 16-46PC+) would the HT2-TL be a better match for me?  Or would the HT3 still have a sound quality advantage over the HT2-TL even with either paired with a sub?

[coke]

Thanks Jim.  Your responses are always clear and very helpful.

So if I'm going to use a sub (SVS 16-46PC+) would the HT2-TL be a better match for me?  Or would the HT3 still have a sound quality advantage over the HT2-TL even with either paired with a sub?

For the price difference, you could have HT2-TLs with multiple subs.

[avahifi]

I have my HT3s (older version) and HT2TLs (RAAL tweeter) side by side right now in my sound lab.  Both are outstanding speakers and I am happy to own both of them.

In my listening room, the HT3s are a bit warmer sounding in the midrange and of course have better very deep bass extension.  I think they are easily worth the 50 percent price premium.  However I could be very happy with the HT2s as my main speakers.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

[fsimms]

Both do a good job of creating the illusion that the performers are in the room with you.

It is a lot of fun to be able to get a great legendary singer to crawl out of their grave and perform, at my whim, their greatest hits in my own condo.

Bob

[DMurphy]

I have my HT3s (older version) and HT2TLs (RAAL tweeter) side by side right now in my sound lab.  Both are outstanding speakers and I am happy to own both of them.

In my listening room, the HT3s are a bit warmer sounding in the midrange and of course have better very deep bass extension.  I think they are easily worth the 50 percent price premium.  However I could be very happy with the HT2s as my main speakers.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

Beat me to it Frank.  That's essentially what I was going to post, minus maybe a conclusion on the price premium, and plus a comment on the RAAL vs. the G2 tweet.  Although I certainly didn't set out to produce different sounding midranges in the two speakers, my experience has been that 3-ways with a dedicated midrange tend to have a fuller midrange presentation than 2-ways, even when they measure similarly.  I think I know why, but it's not worth going into.  The RAAL also has more extension at the very top end than the G2, but I don't know how obvious this would be on a lot of program.material.   

[Saturn94]

For the price difference, you could have HT2-TLs with multiple subs.

  I hear ya.

Unfortunately, I don't have room for a second sub in my living room (I don't have a dedicted room for music/HT). But the good news is that my SVS sub does an excellent job on it's own!

[ctviggen]

Beat me to it Frank.  That's essentially what I was going to post, minus maybe a conclusion on the price premium, and plus a comment on the RAAL vs. the G2 tweet.  Although I certainly didn't set out to produce different sounding midranges in the two speakers, my experience has been that 3-ways with a dedicated midrange tend to have a fuller midrange presentation than 2-ways, even when they measure similarly.  I think I know why, but it's not worth going into. 

Lower distortion, perhaps? 

[martyo]

My brother recently got his HT2/TL-RAALs, and I've got the HT3-G2's. Hopefully at some point he will chime in. He's heard my HT3 more than than I've heard his HT2's.

[Big Red Machine]

My brother recently got his HT2/TL-RAALs, and I've got the HT3-G2's. Hopefully at some point he will chime in. He's heard my HT3 more than than I've heard his HT2's.

You have better beer?

[charmerci]

Although I certainly didn't set out to produce different sounding midranges in the two speakers, my experience has been that 3-ways with a dedicated midrange tend to have a fuller midrange presentation than 2-ways, even when they measure similarly.  I think I know why, but it's not worth going into. 

Dennis, I think inquiring minds here really do want to know!

[ctviggen]

I think a true test would be to set up the HT2TL in the same physical configuration as the HT3 and then test.  The problem is these are two different configurations of speakers (MTM versus TML, or whatever the HT3 is).  It's hard to compare two different configurations, even disregarding the 2-way v. 3-way. 

Also, I don't necessarily agree that two way versus three way have a fuller midrange.  More depends on speaker design than just two versus three way.

[Big Red Machine]

I know what Dennis is saying about the midrange of the HT3.  Being free to work the midrange, it is a better presentation than the HT2TL whose drivers have double duty.

[martyo]

I know what Dennis is saying about the midrange of the HT3.  Being free to work the midrange, it is a better presentation than the HT2TL whose drivers have double duty.

Yep, thanks Pete.

With the HT3's the only speaker you see moving is the woofer. The first time I was listening with Marks HT2's it was like "wow, look at those W18's move." lol

[TomW16]

Also, I don't necessarily agree that two way versus three way have a fuller midrange.  More depends on speaker design than just two versus three way.

I don't mean to speak for Dennis but I don't think that he would say that all three ways have fuller midranges than two ways.  In fact, I would bet that he would say that most two ways sound better than three ways because the crossover in a three-way is complex and difficult to get right.

If you can get the crossover right on a three-way, you will have much of the bass duty relieved from the mid woofer, which should sound more refined.  Of course, you have to weigh that against a more complicated crossover and a less efficient speaker design.

Tom

[DMurphy]

I don't mean to speak for Dennis but I don't think that he would say that all three ways have fuller midranges than two ways.  In fact, I would bet that he would say that most two ways sound better than three ways because the crossover in a three-way is complex and difficult to get right.

If you can get the crossover right on a three-way, you will have much of the bass duty relieved from the mid woofer, which should sound more refined.  Of course, you have to weigh that against a more complicated crossover and a less efficient speaker design.

Tom

Feel free to speak.  I was trying to keep factors constant by saying that 3 ways often sound fuller even when they measure similarly to a 2-way.  That is, even a single and hopefully competent designer sets out to produce similar sound from the two types of speakers, it doesn't always turn out that way.  Part of this may be because the dedicated mid has to do less work, but I suspect other factors are at work, having to do with the need to bend the mid's response at either end of a fairly narrow bandpass width, which usually produces dome-shaped response that may sound more forward.  I'm not sure.   In any event, I didn't say that "fuller" was necessarily "better."   And there is more room to screw up with a 3-way. 

[Saturn94]

It appears that at least part of the difference has to do with whether or not the W18 has to handle bass duties as well as midrange.

Given that I will be using a subwoofer and that the HT2-TL has 2 drivers to share the load, would the difference between the HT3 and HT2-TL be smaller?   I assume midrange distortion on the HT2-TL would be reduced in this setup?

I greatly appreciate the responses.

[DMurphy]

Well, hopefully you would be using a high pass filter on the HT2's.  It would be pretty hard to get a smooth blend otherwise, unless the sub was only operating below 30 Hz or so.   But with a high pass filter, and with a crossover in the 60-80 Hz area, you would be taking a lot of the load off of the W18's.  Would this really improve the midrange?  There are more opinions than facts on that one.  But if you ever make it back to Bethesda, you can help me lug my HT3 upstairs and at least see if you can hear much difference in the midrange with the HT2's running full range. 

[Nuance]

Just get the SoundScape's and call it a day. Then you'll know you've got the best of the best.