[tizeye]

After on again, off again, finally finished the A/V3S.  They sound great but obviously time to retire my 70’s vintage EPI speakers currently using as fronts.  About to start on the fronts which unfortunately will be limited to bookshelves due to this thing called a fireplace that limits ideal placement of AV gear and AV support furniture.  My next home will have a dedicated bonus room allowing easier HT setup, but that is a couple years away.  The A/V-1 is the obvious choice, but is getting some competition from a Seas E18 based kit with a little lower range and only moderately larger box that has caught my eye.  A couple questions.

The A/V3S I built is T2 based and am assuming will blend well with the newer T3.  What caught my eye was the A/V-1 with the T3.  I assumed you had to rework the crossover with the new tweeter, but with the A/V-1 it is either a major change or a misprint on the website.  With the T2, the A/V-1 had a series network with crossover at 3kHz.  With the T3 I was assuming would adjust a resistor or capacitor for the new tweeter to the same M-130, but the web site states parallel network with crossover at 2kHz.  Is that correct? That’s a total rework!

On another thread concerning PE boxes is the note of “soon to be released” 3 new Neo based kits.  This raises the dilemma – A/V-1 vs. Neo-1.  While I saw the threads on the Neo-1, and the x versions, there was no discussion on A/V-1 vs. Neo-1.  Should I wait?  How well would the Neo integrate with the A/V3S or is it better to stay with the A/V-1?

Speaking of integration.  Would there be an advantage of upgrading my A/V3S from the T2 to T3 (or Neo for that matter) or will the T2 be just fine?  At $30 for the T3 it’s not an issue, it is just how much the crossover components will need to be replaced, particularly Sonicaps, increasing the cost.

[Danny Richie]

I assumed you had to rework the crossover with the new tweeter, but with the A/V-1 it is either a major change or a misprint on the website.

When I brought in the new GR-T3 tweeter I did a complete rework of that design. I didn't have to. One resistor change and one cap value change and it could be a drop in replacement for the GR-T2 tweeter. I just wanted to see if I could make it even better, and did.

With the T2, the A/V-1 had a series network with crossover at 3kHz.  With the T3 I was assuming would adjust a resistor or capacitor for the new tweeter to the same M-130, but the web site states parallel network with crossover at 2kHz.  Is that correct? That’s a total rework!

Yea, the series network allowed for a really good blend of the drivers. But in the end it just didn't quite have the resolution or as good of an off axis response as using a parallel crossover with the crossover point pushed down to 2kHz.

The new version sounds slightly better still.

On another thread concerning PE boxes is the note of “soon to be released” 3 new Neo based kits.  This raises the dilemma – A/V-1 vs. Neo-1.  While I saw the threads on the Neo-1, and the x versions, there was no discussion on A/V-1 vs. Neo-1.  Should I wait?

If you want to try one of the new Neo mini-monitors then there is nothing to wait for. They are in stock and shipping. The Neo models do take the whole speaker up a couple of notches.

How well would the Neo integrate with the A/V3S or is it better to stay with the A/V-1?

Not bad.

Would there be an advantage of upgrading my A/V3S from the T2 to T3 (or Neo for that matter) or will the T2 be just fine?

I'd stick with the one you have. Changing it out does require some network changes and the difference is somewhat marginal.

[tizeye]

Thanks Danny, I think, as you just made my decision harder.  Really want the Neo-1 or 1x  but probably wait for other's impressions (and your extended listening opinion) with the just released kits to determine which.  My strength is in the woodworking so the prefinished boxes at PE is a non-issue.  Could build the A/V-1 in the interum and give to one of my kids - but then I would have to decide which kid I liked the best or do a lot more building.