Originally Posted by zaracsan
I would have predicted just such a response from you John, given that you have exhibited a decided propensity for seeing things only as required to sell your current product du jour; as well as your previously confessed melancholy from having beaten the Evo drum for the last five years.
Geez, Z, feeling sensitive today?!? My point about Evo is that I've sold a ton, I still like the product, but it *is* 5 years old now and it's time *for me* to focus on something different and new. If the Three's driver technology weren't so advanced or were watered down versions of the M5/M6, then sure, Evo would still be top dog, no doubt. But that's not the case.
Your suggestion that the Denon receiver "throws out any advantage the M6 has", is decidedly short-sighted advice IMHO. In fact, you have even contradicted yourself here, as you said earlier in this very thread (Post #664) that:
"Well, the Japanese receivers struggle a lot more with NHT than stuff like NAD, Rotel, Arcam. Most of them are so woefully inadequate with current that any kind of really difficult scene in at high volumes can shut them down or make them sound strained and anemic."
That's not a contradiction. Given that a Denon will be driving either one and the efficiencies are the same, there's no advantage either way when it comes to power. BUT, the Audyssey will compensate for the placement, taking away that advantage as well.
Having already said this, you then suggest that Bob not get the NHT speakers (M6es) that are all ready optimized for in-cabinet placement; speakers that have an additional crossover specifically designed for this purpose, which would not tie him to using a receiver which you have already characterized as "woefully inadequate".
I said *most* Japanese receivers. The 4xxx series Denons are usually sufficient. 3xxx series Denons usually don't do that well. Please reread those sentences.
I think Bob would be far better served by choosing speakers that would allow him a migration path to (say) a more suitable (better) amp and a pre/pro that offers him superior AV quality and functionality for rapidly evolving technologies; especially when those speakers don't require him to be married to an Audyssey EQ to make them work for his placement.
You mean like the NHT preamp/amp that also can deal with this stuff? However, I do believe Bob already bought the Denon.
Furthermore, your intimation that the M6 is somehow lacking in "vocal intelligibility" is a misleading assertion, as my personal listening experiences have shown me that the M6 does a terrific job at making dialogue very clearly understood. You can prattle on all you want about the nuances of the Threes in the music realm, but I think you are way off base in trying to dismiss the M6, by intimating they have some sort of short coming with regard to reproducing dialogue. Fact is, nothing could be further from the truth; and stating otherwise, only serves to further diminish your credibility.
Oh, please. Are you suggesting that, as good as M6s are, that there's no room for improvement? I think you should hear both the Classic series and Xds to see what is possible before assuming that NHT has made no strides in the last 5 years. Used properly as they are, metal drivers have a natural resolution advantage over polypropylene.
It has become obvious to me John, that your motivation for (now) giving the Evolution line the red-headed stepchild treatment, is all about your vested interest in the success of the Classic speaker line roll-out.
If I was worried about vested interests, I would have been dismissing the Classics as they haven't had sufficient availability to make me any damned money. The fact that I'm excited about something from which I can't make much money should be ample proof of my innocence.
As more impartial posters than yourself have already expressed in these pages, the Classics are not exactly the "giant-killers" you once supposed them to be.
For every person that has posted (1? 2?) that say they aren't giant-killers (or, at least, "giant embarrassers"), I can whip out two or three that will state otherwise. Not because they are perfect, but because they are embarrassingly good for such little money. Xd is the *real* giant-killer. Threes just make most other stuff look bad in performance, price, aesthetics or all three.
My only point here, is that in your hurry to move on to the 'next big thing' for your business, you are (IMO) unfairly characterizing the M6, in order to suit your current agenda. While I'm sure the Three is a very good speaker, the fact remains that the M6 (T6) *is* currently a Stereophile Class A rated speaker and the jury is still out on the Threes; a fact which I think is important for AVS readers to not lose sight of, while you are busy trying to throw the M6es under the bus.
Oh, c'mon, that's just crap. I tell lots of people that they should *keep* their Evolutions and not worry about the Classics. And, to be honest, I could make *more* money selling Evos. Why would I talk someone out of spending $1200 or $4000 to spend $800 or $1800? Because I'm so greedy and biased? Bob asked me "if it were you, which would you buy" and the answer was "the 3/3c combo, no doubt". Because that's what I honestly feel. Now, I admit that I do prefer the *tonal* balance of the M6 a little better, but the increase in resolution and clarity and "blackness" to the background is enough to sway me. After all, you can EQ in tonal balance, but you can't EQ in resolution. There are plenty of people who will prefer the Evos over the Threes, no doubt. I also have people trading in Evo, despite my admonitions to "don't worry, be happy". But they come in and listen and some say "I'm still happy" and others say "I have to have them".