[jsalk]

If you don't mind me asking, in my situation (using a quality sub), would you agree with Nuance that the HT2-TL would be a better fit for me than the HT3?

If you can get your sub dialed in perfectly, I would agree.  The HT3's were designed so that a sub would not be necessary.  But if you are using one (or two) and can get them dialed in perfectly (or at least close), there really is no need for the added extension of the HT3's.  What's more, you will have a much easier load to drive with the HT2-TL's.

- Jim

[Saturn94]

..........  A sub can theoretically be placed within the room at an ideal place to provide the smoothest bass without having to sacrifice placement of the left and right speakers that can be optimized for imaging.  The difficulty with subs, however, is integrating them seemlessly......

I have found this to be the case in my situation.  It took a bit a tweeking, but I was able to achieve great results (at least to my ears ).

[Saturn94]

If you can get your sub dialed in perfectly, I would agree.  The HT3's were designed so that a sub would not be necessary.  But if you are using one (or two) and can get them dialed in perfectly (or at least close), there really is no need for the added extension of the HT3's.  What's more, you will have a much easier load to drive with the HT2-TL's.

- Jim

Thanks.

[JLM]

IMO the ideal situation for you would be to add a 2nd matching subwoofer and use MT designed speakers.

[Saturn94]

IMO the ideal situation for you would be to add a 2nd matching subwoofer and use MT designed speakers.

Interesting. Given that I get plenty of output from my single sub in my room, what would be the advantage of adding a second sub and using them with an MT design over an MTM design?

Thanks.  I appreciate all the great feedback.

[srb]

Interesting. Given that I get plenty of output from my single sub in my room, what would be the advantage of adding a second sub and using them with an MT design over an MTM design?

The advantage of a second subwoofer is that it can help smooth and even out bass peaks and nulls.
 
I don't see an advantage in using an MT versus an MTM.  The MTM has an efficiency advantage over the MT.  In most designs, including the HT2-TL/HT1-TL, this is about 3dB, which means that you would need twice the amplifier power to produce the same level with the MT.
 
Steve

[Saturn94]

The advantage of a second subwoofer is that it can help smooth and even out bass peaks and nulls.
 
I don't see an advantage in using an MT versus an MTM.  The MTM has an efficiency advantage over the MT.  In most designs, including the HT2-TL/HT1-TL, this is about 3dB, which means that you would need twice the amplifier power to produce the same level with the MT.
 
Steve

Thanks for the great info.

[Nuance]

The advantage of a second subwoofer is that it can help smooth and even out bass peaks and nulls.
 

^This.  Some people have found that adding multiple subwoofers negates the need for parametric EQ down low.  In other words, they smooth the peaks and fill in the nulls.  You would, of course, need to take the time to properly place them.  I'll be helping a buddy place three dual opposed DIY 18" LMS5400 subwoofers (yes, thats six 18" LMS drivers), then adjusting for delay, phase, individual crossover and adding EQ if necessary.  It will probably take all day, but the results will be striking to say the least.

Saturn, that SVS EQ could be amazing.  Currently there isn't anything on the market that adjusts for phase as thoroughly as I'd like.  The Behringer DCX2496 does a decent job, but I know it could be better.  Perhaps the SVS unit will be the answer?

Just give us your bank routing and account #, Saturn, and we'll be sure the money moves. 

[Saturn94]

^This.  Some people have found that adding multiple subwoofers negates the need for parametric EQ down low.  In other words, they smooth the peaks and fill in the nulls.  You would, of course, need to take the time to properly place them.  I'll be helping a buddy place three dual opposed DIY 18" LMS5400 subwoofers (yes, thats six 18" LMS drivers), then adjusting for delay, phase, individual crossover and adding EQ if necessary.  It will probably take all day, but the results will be striking to say the least.

Saturn, that SVS EQ could be amazing.  Currently there isn't anything on the market that adjusts for phase as thoroughly as I'd like.  The Behringer DCX2496 does a decent job, but I know it could be better.  Perhaps the SVS unit will be the answer?

Just give us your bank routing and account #, Saturn, and we'll be sure the money moves. 

Actually, I work at a financial institution and see people all the time who have given out their info to someone online or on the phone.

I may give the SVS sub EQ a try even if I don't replace my speakers.  My main hesitation is that the SVS/Audyssey sub EQ does not allow you to customize the bass curve should you prefer something other than a flat response.  I think SVS has a good return policy so it may not hurt to give it a try.

I have tentative plans to meet with Dennis later this month, so hopefully at that time I'll have a better idea if I will continue to pursue replacing my L1290/2s or look to make improvements elsewhere (Audyssey Sound EQ maybe?).

So far I've not found a speaker I like significantly better than my current speakers (at least enough to warrant spending $$$$).  To date I've auditioned the Magnepan 1.7, Revel 32, GR Research N2X, GR Research A/V-3, and Usher Mini Dancer 2.