Energy Connoisseur C-3, Onix X-LS, SVS SBS-01, etc.

[SKINNER]

So, I'm looking for some opinions on a 2.1 setup. I've heard quite a few people recommend Energy's C-3's and the X-LS's from Onix are getting good reviews.

This setup will be in a smaller room (12x12x9) and will be paired with the likes of either a Mirage Omni-s10, X-sub, or possibly the Cadence sub...

Any thoughts?

 

[Pianoman84d]

I like my Onix X-LS. But I did not compare it to the Energys. I find the X-LS extraordinarily listenable to the point where I sound like a fanboy in my post in the write your own review section.

I recommend that you listen to as many as you can and then pick the ones you like the best. As you know, other's perceptions of speakers can only tell you so much. You are the ones who have to listen to them every day and should enjoy doing so.

As far as subwoofers go, I like the X-Sub from Onix as well (hey it matched my X-LS's). I have it in a medium room and get response with test tones to 27hz (it is not even in the corner). Thats pretty impressive in my book for a $200 + Shipping sub

Hope this helped you some.

 

[j_garcia]

I really don't like the Energys much. I heard the C3s with a Jolida 75W tube amp and I still thought they sounded flat. I haven't heard the X-LS, but I've owned what are essentially the predecessor to them, the GR Research A/V-1s and I have to say I loved those speakers (almost the same specs) - and the only reason I replaced them was because I found some A/V-2s.

I've also heard the SBS-01s and while very good, I don't think they will give quite the same depth and detail and certainly not the bass that the X-LS are capable of.

So, my choice would be the X-LS for the price.

 

[silversurfer]

I haven't heard the X-LS, but I've owned what are essentially the predecessor to them, the GR Research A/V-1s and I have to say I loved those speakers (almost the same specs) - and the only reason I replaced them was because I found some A/V-2s.

I would investigate this likeness more. My understanding from those who have seen and heard A/V-1s and the XL-S is that the drivers are different as well as the sound. The A/V-1 being the better speaker.

In addition, the SBS-01 seems to have better detail through the mids and highs than the XL-S, but not the same type of bass.

I am hoping to draw my own conclusions soon.

 

[Duffman-OOHYEAH]

In addition, the SBS-01 seems to have better detail through the mids and highs than the XL-S, but not the same type of bass.

The SBS-01 may have more energy in those departments but I highly doubt they're more detailed. The owners of the x-ls's (myself included) and the reviewers here on audioholics state that the speakers "get out of the way" and let the source just play, this is very true. While the reveiws I've seen on the svs 's state they are not the most musical speakers. Just felt like throwing that out there.

JR

 

[soundhound]

i've read pretty much the same thing about the svs. also agree about the energies sounding a little "flat." great speakers if that's your thing, though. i'm looking at the onix myself, they look pretty good, at a great price.

 

[SKINNER]

What do you guys mean when you say the Energy's play flat? Like...hollow/cold? I'm looking for something much warmer if so. How would you guys describe the Onix's sound?

My current HT uses Klipsch RF35 towers, RC35 center and, RS 35 surrounds with an HK AVR635. While I love the Klipsch's for TV and movies they can be a bit bright with some music content. On the flip side, this 2.1 setup will be used 100% for music. I'm planning on setting up my own listening studio to just kick back in and relax.

 

[Sheep]

I like the Energy's but I'm also a fanboy.

I agree with the flat statement. They are very laid back, just the way I like it.

SheepStar

 

[SKINNER]

I like the Energy's but I'm also a fanboy.

I agree with the flat statement. They are very laid back, just the way I like it.

SheepStar

Can you compare them to any other speakers? I've done a lot of listening to Klipsch's, Paradigm's, B&W, and Mirage (OM-1's none the less....heavenly)

 

[Sheep]

Well, I have the C-3s smaller brother, the C-1s.

I have comparded then to Totem's and Missions and I have heard a few others from Paradigm and warfdale.

The Totem's sounded better, but they cost 3 times as much.

Mites

Its hard for me to recall my feelings compared to others I have heard, as it was a long time ago. I know the missions sounded a little forward while flipping back and forth between the 2.

The warfdales had a weird sound to them(my friend has these). They were not bright, but they lacked ANY detail, and the bass response sucked.

The paradigms had great mights and treble, but they also lacked in the bass department.

Hope this helps,
SheepStar

 

[j_garcia]

I would investigate this likeness more. My understanding from those who have seen and heard A/V-1s and the XL-S is that the drivers are different as well as the sound. The A/V-1 being the better speaker.

In addition, the SBS-01 seems to have better detail through the mids and highs than the XL-S, but not the same type of bass.

I am hoping to draw my own conclusions soon.

The A/V-1s likely use a higher quality x-over and obviously different drivers. I'd expect the highs will be a bit softer on the A/V-1s, but the mids should be farily similar. With the cabinet tuning, I'd expect bass to be similar between them, though the 5 1/4" midbass I'd expect probably performs slightly better higher up.

When I heard the SBS-01, while I liked their sound overall, I wasn't hearing nearly the same depth as my A/V-1s or -2s have. They are very impressive for the price range, as I am sure the X-LS are also. I really would like to hear the SBS-01s again in my own setup to get a better idea of their abilities though.

 

[soundhound]

What do you guys mean when you say the Energy's play flat? Like...hollow/cold?

flat:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/energy_connoisseur_c3/

i wouldn't call them cold, or even hollow really, unless maybe you were used to super pronounced mids. they sound very rich to me, actually, but maybe more on the "analytical" end of the spectrum rather than the "engaging" end. it might sound strange to say so after describing them as flat, but to my ears both the low and high end are positively lush. it's hard for me to describe, but maybe Sheep knows what i mean.

 

[Sheep]

I really would like to hear the SBS-01s again in my own setup to get a better idea of their abilities though.

If you do, you can't see, taste, or touch. It will affect the results in a negative outcome.

But maybe Sheep knows what I mean.

Mos def. The highs are there, as are the mids and midbass, but they never overpower one another. The mids aren't forward either, which is a big plus for myself. The bass on the C-1's is not the greatest, but good enough considering what they are.


SheepStar

 

[SKINNER]

flat:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/energy_connoisseur_c3/

So you're talking about a flat frequency response (WTF, I thought this was a good thing?). When everyone said flat I assumed they meant the sound was flat or dull? Since when is a flat response a bad thing?

 

[soundhound]

theoretically a flat FR is most likely a good thing, but that doesn't always guarantee a speaker will be pleasing to the ear, or at least to everyone's ear. i think it probably can provide a good starting point for knowing which speakers to consider evaluating, but in the end, what it really comes down to is just listening for yourself to see which speaker (or speakers) with that kind of characteristic sound best to you.

as for the c-3, it does sound a little flat or dull to me compared to more "dynamic" speakers. i was just providing the graphs as a way of saying that it's also a relatively flat FR, meaning what i said above: that it doesn't guarantee anythnig about how any individual listener might like it. hope that makes some sense at least.

 

[SKINNER]

Yeah, the bad thing is the Onix and SVS offerings aren't in stores (obviously) and the C-3's are like 02' models....what to do, what to do

 

[Duffman-OOHYEAH]

Purchase all of them and give thee old boot to the losers.

If you happen to live around philly Pa you're more then welcome to stop in for an audition of the x-ls + x-sub.

4 your viewing pleasure.



JR

 

[SKINNER]

I wish I did, I'm in Indiana. What's your personal take on the combo you have there? B

 

[JaceTheAce]

I'd HIGHLY recommend the Energy C-3's. I auditioned several speakers in 2003 before I purchased them. I agree that they have a more balanced "flat" frequency response, but that is why I liked them so much. It boiled down to the Energys or Paradigms (can't remember which model, but one similar in specs), but I chose the C-3's as my first choice. The B&W's sounded great, but were a little too bright for my tastes. Vocals sounded the best on the C-3's, IMO.

Prior to moving the C-3's to my living room, I had them in a 11x13 room. They sounded fine in the small room.

 

[SKINNER]

I'd HIGHLY recommend the Energy C-3's. I auditioned several speakers in 2003 before I purchased them. I agree that they have a more balanced "flat" frequency response, but that is why I liked them so much. It boiled down to the Energys or Paradigms (can't remember which model, but one similar in specs), but I chose the C-3's as my first choice. The B&W's sounded great, but were a little too bright for my tastes. Vocals sounded the best on the C-3's, IMO.

Prior to moving the C-3's to my living room, I had them in a 11x13 room. They sounded fine in the small room.

How does the Energy's sound/feel compare to the Paradigms? (bookshelves or towers?)