NHT 2.3A vs. NHT 3.3 original model

You can't even start to compare these two speakers. There is NO comparison. The 3.3 is in an entirely different class. The 2.3 was a very average speaker for the time.
A realistic comparison would be the 2.3 vs the 2.5 which it still comes out on the loosing end.

Bigtee --

Thanks for the input! Unfortunately "there is NO comparison" doesn't really provide any details on where the 2.3As performance is lacking re: the 3.3 (or the 2.5, for that matter).

Since you've obviously heard all three speakers, what did the 3.3 and 2.5 do better than the 2.3A (other than bass)?

Pat

Pat, the 3.3 bettered the 2.3 in every area. The 2.3 is not on the same playing field. The 3.3 is more open, has better highs, has a better midrange and MUCH better bass. The 2.5 is a better speaker than the 2.3. It betters the 2.3 in transparency, midrange definition and bass.
The reason I didn't get more specific is there is actually not a lot there to get specific with. It is a apple vs a grape comparison.
The 3.3 will play much, much louder.
You can go to an old Stereophile (look at their web sight) and read the review on the 3.3. It was a "B" rated speaker. The 2.3 was a poor "D" rated speaker at best. So, think of any audiophile term and the 3.3 betters it!
The 2.3 was one of NHT's initial products. They got a lot better with time.
Yes, I have owned all 3. I still have the 3.3's and the 2.5's in a home theater application.
The only area where the 2.3 betters the 3.3 is it doesn't require as much power to operate.

Thanks -- that's the kind of info that I was hoping to get!

A question, though -- you mention that this was one of NHT's initial products. Are you thinking of the plain 2.3, as oppposed to the 2.3A? The 2.3 was introduced in 1991, while the 2.3A was introduced in 1993, the same year as the 3.3. I have no idea what the difference (if any) is between the two models, though.

Thanks again!

Pat