Energy Owners Thread - Page 6

There's a decent review of the RC-70's up at ultimateavmag.

It's actually more a review of a surround system built around the RC-70's, but it's a good read all the same. Nice to see some attention starting

I may be getting a pair of the C-3s and a C-C1 center soon. But they are 15.5" high since they have the port on the bottom front, and won't fit on the shelves where I have my current bookshelf speakers. I can take out that shelf and set them on the shelf below, but I'll need to come up with something to get them to the right height that's at least somewhat toddler-proof - even right now I have my current bookshelf speakers velcroed in place so they don't get bumped and moved 10 times a day.

I'm assuming people here have them on shelves or on stands? Any ideas for me? (you can see my current setup in my gallery)

I just saw a review of the RC-70 from UHF Mag, a Canadian magazine which tends to not to hold back on anything they review. They were not kind to it overall. They thought the depth of soundstage was limited, sometimes the rhythm was not coherent. They thought the midbass was a bit thin, and sometimes didn't convey the weight or impact of drums correctly.Their suspicion is that in the attempt to achieve flat frequency response, the speaker sacrifices phase accuracy. (me paraphrasing all). Their picture of a 100Hz square wave also looked pretty bad (compared to other speakers)

Their conclusion was "Not a reference, and possibly not even for connoisseurs".

Wow. I've never heard the RC-70, but that really must hurt. I expected them to like it more since they love the original Reference C's made in the 80's. And they also really liked the Veritas 2.8 before.

I cannot possibly imagine how the RC-70 midbass could be construed as thin by anyone with normal hearing.

Yay! Finally an Energy owner's thread. I didn't even realize this was going on for this long, anyway... here is my home theater set up:

Sound:
Energy C-3 mains
Energy CC-1 on the way
Energy Take 5's for the rear surrounds
Energy e:XL-10 sub
Yamaha RX-V493 Receiver
Yamaha CDX-500U CD Player (circa 1986, still works)
Sennheiser HD-525 Headphones
Sennheiser PXC-250 Noise Cancelling Headphones
Homemade Headphone Amp

Video:
Sony VPH-1251Q CRT Projector
DIY 96" screen

C-3's are on the Connoisseur stands and Take 2's are on the Take stands. My first purchase of the Energys were made when I was 19 - back in 2000. I bought the two Take 5 speakers and e:XL-10 knowing that I'd eventually upgrade the front mains. I went into the purchase knowing that the e:XL-8 would be a better match for the Take 5's, but wanted the 10 for future Home Theater growth. I'm glad I did this.

I absolutely love the C-3's. I listened to B&W, Paradigm, Def Tech, and Polk, and I felt the Energy's were better sounding for the price point. I think I enjoyed the Paradigms just as much, but there was something about the C-3's that I liked better. The bass seemed more deep and clean. For me, I feel the C-3's are plenty sufficient for listening to music without the subwoofer. And I think my apartment neighbors appreciate that as well.

Click on the images for a larger pic:

That was my paraphrase....it's hard for me to paraphrase them, as I'm just going by memory. They mentioned that on some tracks, everything sounded fine, but then one drum note all of the sudden sounded completely wrong. If they are right in that phase accuracy between the various drivers is off, then it does make a bit of sense that this could happen.

UHFMag has always been a "no holds barred" purist magazine. The reviews are done by three people, and all three were unamimous that the speaker disappointed them. I'm disappointed that they didn't like it, as they've never given Energy a bad review before.

If you listen to (or are used to) speakers with a bit of a hump in the mid-bass region, then you listen to something that's flatter and more accruate, it may sound thin in that region in comparison.

I also can't imagine someone with normal hearing saying that the soundstage is limited and the mid-bass is thin. I listen and I hear those as strengths of the speaker

That review completely stuns me. I went to my favorite listening room again today and A/B'd the RC-70's against the 2.4i's (yes... again!). I took my own reference CD with me this time. For my money, I'm still leaving with the RC's. If I had other people's money, of course I'd take the 2.4i's but I find the RC-70 sonically amazing on all the material I've fed it. Has anybody else been listening to them for any extent? I'm very curious to hear other's thoughts now.

I have listened to my RC-70's probably on average 5 times a week for the last 6 months. While I'm no expert, I know what my ears like and I very much like the RC-70's. Sure I could find better speakers for more money, maybe even a pair or two that are better for less, but I don't think that anyone can legitimately claim that the RC-70's are not in the range of good to quite possibly very excellent speakers at any price or category.

And that is what really matters. Professional reviews won't tell you how much you will like each speaker.

I went to UHFmag website to check out the review. After I read their ideas on speaker wire


After seeing this, I thought it probably wasn't worth my time reading the RC-70 review.

I was looking at another site- canuckaudiomart.com search under energy, there is a cc3 for sale for $435 cdn. Just thought I would let those know that were looking. It looks like it was listed mar 16th.

I've just added the final touch (the surrounds) to my veritas system. 2.4is, 2.0i centre, and 2.2is with stands for rears/surrounds. Working on room treatments now to get the most out of these, cuz this is as deep as I want to get.

I had a connoisseur set up (CC3 and C7s with xl150 surrounds) before these and they are great speakers, but in a different class than the veritas.

If I were to do it all over again, I'd get a great sub with a 2.2i set up all around with 2.0i centre. I have a great sub, and really feel like I'm neglecting the bottom end of the 2.4is. Anyway, I'm in a new room now, hopefully will be able to tweak out the system to take advantage of the capabilities of these speakers.

Great thread.

i was all set to go for an athena setup, when i started looking at energy. now i'm considering some C-3s in front, but i'm not sure what i would use as a center with those, or what surrounds to get. also i have a yamaha receiver, and from what i've seen in this thread and others, it seems that the consensus is that energies are better matched with denon gear, or separates. should i stick with the "quick and easy" athena setup (4 or 5 B1.2), or go for the energies? are they enough more of an upgrade to justify the hassle of searching for a matched center, surrounds, changing receivers, etc.?

My C-3's are powered by a Yamaha receiver.

Audioadvisor.com has the C-3s at half off retail price, and the matching C-C1 center channel. $700 for 5.0 on par with Ascend 170s.

They will probably sound fine with your Yamaha. Later on you could look into a Denon, HK, etc. if you want.

Looks like you were about to buy 4 or 5 B1.2's which means two would be for surround. So why not buy 4 C-3's for fronts and surrounds? Then get the CC-1 for a center and you're set. This setup will cost you $700 vs $380 for the Athenas, but the Energy C-3 are better speakers.

that's why i was looking at them. i saw that C-C1, but i thought there was a C-C3 center. but if the C1 matches okay, i guess that makes that part easy.

you really think they're on a par with the ascends? from everything i've heard, that is a high mark to shoot for. it sounds like they might be a step up from an "entry level" athena setup though -- am i wrong about that? not to slam the athenas, which everyone really seems to like. i'm finding it to be a hard decision for some reason. maybe it's a matter of preference, or are the C3s really that much better? i don't really have a problem with getting both and listening for myself, but i would like to avoid all the shipping costs if possible.

sorry for all the questions, i just have no idea where i would even demo energies around here (if that's even possible). thanks everyone!

the short answer is because the athenas seemed like the absolute best bang for the buck, whereas i haven't done the research in the energy price range to know if there might be better alternatives at those prices, or if double the money would give double the performance over the athenas, etc. (if you follow what i'm saying. )

i also think if i like the C-3s i'd rather have another one of those for the center. how hard do you guys think it would be to get rid of a single extra C-3?

Does anyone have any thoughts about using a Take FPS as a center channel match when the l/r are c-3's?

Read the Soundstage review here (excellent even for $500 speakers - which was the original retail price):
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/energy_c3.htm

Thought I'd check in as a fellow energy owner.

My original system was a mix of Athena and Energy connoisseur products.

I have now happiy upgraded to the veritas i series for all.

I have 2.4i towers, 2.0Ri rears, a 2.0Ci on order, and an SVS pb12/2+ sub for good measure.

These speakers are a significant upgrade from my athena's, but I think only worth it if the rest of the system is of similar calibre.

I just spend the afternoon critically listening to jazz on a friends high end system, and it was very appealing. I need to get upgrade to da edicated audiophile spec amplifier and quality ICs to get to where closer to where I want on this system for two channel critical listening performance.

I am very happy with the veritas i speakers.

thx

kw.................

the reviews do look pretty good, although they are a little dated.

i think what i've decided is to get a pair of the C-3s and a pair of the B1.2s for surrounds. i think C-3s all around is overkill for my needs -- the room is a medium sized 15x18, i do 50-50 tv/movies at the most, if not 60-40 tv, so the surrounds aren't as crucial. if i could find C-1s for a good price, i might consider getting those instead, shipping the B1.2s back.

then the only question is what to use as a center. from what i've read, i'm not really impressed or interested in the C-C1. i'd much rather have a third C-3 for the front. then i think the front 3 C-3 soundstage with the two B1.2s as surrounds would be a very interesting "hybrid" combination (velodyne sub, btw). if anyone is also interested in the C-3s and thinks they would like a C-3 center, email me and we could maybe go in together on a pair. with the coupon code in their flier, the audioadvisor price is around $211 a pair (demos), which seems like a pretty good deal for these speakers.

I have had Athena's and the connoisseur's in a system. I would not mix them if I listend to much music. They definitely aren't timbre matched. It bothered me. That is what started me down the path of upgrading.....the attempt to get a timbre matched set up.

Also, I would rather have a c-c1 in the centre than a C-3. The dispersion of the c-c1 will be superior to the c-3. But you are right in knowing that the c-c1 isn't ideal either. The centre channel is the most important speaker in the HT setup. It handles all the dialogue and front centre sound. And because of this I recommend the C-C3. The C-C3 is the shiznit for the Connoisseur line. Check out the reviews. It is better matched to the C-3's than the C-C1, and is a true centre channel.

As you said in earlier posts, the Athena's are great bang for $$ speakers, but Energy Connoisseur is a step up, and better, imo. Especially the higher quality finish. Notable the centre and surround speakers too. The new Energy Take series would be closer spec'd to the Athena's.

IMO, any Connoisseur HT owner should be trying to get the C-C3 for their system. It is a significant upgrade from the C-C1, and the centre channel is the most important speaker in a HT set up.

kw.............

the problem is where to get a C-C3. nothing on ebay or audiogon that i saw. any leads?

i just pulled the trigger on the C-3s and B1.2s before your post -- maybe i can call and cancel the B1.2s. i was curious about how they would sound together since they are essentially made by the same company, but maybe it's not such a great idea after all. the C-3 demos were $175/pr. with the coupon code. maybe AA will let me upgrade to another pair of those, instead. or if anyone has some C-1s for sale, LMK. thanks.

The C-C3 is fairly hard to find.



This is actually my c-c3 for sale. http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/detai...centre_channel

If you are interested use the reply at that website.

It will actually be traded in for a new veritas 2.0Ci very soon (it has been ordered) so it doesn't matter to me which way it goes.

kw......................

They are made by sister company's but not the same company. The C-3's all around would be a much better match. There is a review out there of a HT system with similar concept. All C-C3's and a sub. http://www.hometheatersound.com/equi...3_cr3_s102.htm


kw.........

so close! but i would need one with the black finish. thanks anyway.

they are so hard to find, it's starting to seem a little surreal that a company with supposedly such great speakers wouldn't have any good center channels available in this line. from the website it looks like they have a new c-c100 that has 6.5" drivers and might be a good fit, but that appears to be harder to find than the c-c3! very weird.

that looks pretty awesome. and is it me, or does $600 a speaker for those seems kind of high?

another thing that puzzles me is that is the advice i have read for *every other speaker* is that the ideal configuration is to have 3 identical speakers across the front to get the perfect timbre match, i.e., L/C/R (as even in the system in that link with the 3 C-C3s). supposedly it's also sometimes better because a bookshelf will tend to disperse off the axis more than a lot of centers, providing better sound for those who aren't sitting directly in front of the center speaker. so what is so different about the C-3s that make that such a bad idea?

The C-3's aren't bad, because they will all match (i.e, better than the athena/energy combo), but the C-C3 with it's dual driver design and hyperbolic tweeter is a better centre channel speaker because it will have better dispersion and off-axis listening. One person said something interesting to me last week on the identical l/c/r speaker concept (I had similar thoughts).... "there is a reason these companies design specific centre channel speakers"..... centre channels are designed for "flat response over a very wide horizontal plane, and drastically improved wide and constant dispersion". Just look at the driver positioning.

Many people think that the C-C3 is the best speaker in the Connoisseur line. It's price is certainly reflective.

FWIW, my maple C-C3 did not match my black Athena's at all. But it didn't bother me in the least. The centre as an individual speaker did not stand out by not colour matching the other speakers. And, I'd my priority is sonic features for speaker selection rather than colour matching. The C-C3 has that in spades. Actually, I think the maple finish is much nicer than the black. I wish I would have had an opportunity to get my speakers in maple finish.

kw..............

The C-C3 is gone. And the place where I traded it in already sold it.

I overheard the sales rep talking to him on the phone. The buyer was so excited he came to the store right away to pick it up.

Now I get to burn in my veritas 2.0Ci.

kw.............