Best spkrs for rock: Dunlavy V-Watt/Puppy-Revel??

I think that the Dunlavy's would work the best for you out of those mentioned. That is, if you can get them far enough apart and sit a reasonable distance away from them.

There is no substitute for surface area / power handling / low distortion when looking for high spl's AND good coherency. All of this is accomplished via sharing the load amongst several drivers for each frequency range. To top it off, each driver is able to concentrate on what they do best within a limited bandwidth in a four way system, so nothing is stressed. Ya gotta luv it... Sean
>

I wouldn't get the old Wilson Watt Puppies. The Wilson Watt Puppies 6 and 7 were there best versions. I would recommend the Dunlavy 5 speakers or the Aerial 10T. The Aerial's sound very dynamic. The midrange is very good on the Aerial's. They have an upbeat sound and the bass is awesome. The bass is tight and fast. The Dunlavy's have this amazing midrange and the bass is great. Another speaker I would recommend, is the JM Lab Mezzo Utopia's.

None of the speakers you mention will do rock better than your current NHT 3.3s. They are all very good speakers, but the areas in which they better the NHTs will not be readily revealed on typical rock recordings. You might want to consider some of the powered ATC models.

NHT 3.3 is better than a Dunleavy 5 what have you been smoking? no way no how is this statement correct. Sorry simply not factual. You actually heard Dunleavy 5 speakers? A sick Dunleavy 5 will easily trounce the 3.3. of course this is just my opinion, I could be wrong. But I'm not. Nothing personal to the previous poster. The Dunleavy 5 has the correct amount of resolution needed for loud volume rock any more resolution would be too much resulting in bright, hard overetched qualities. Also takes quite a number of drivers to play loudly without failure,like the 5 has.
cannot think of a better speakers for the authors requirements.

Listen to Sean, he knows of what he speaks when it comes to this... :-)

Onhwy61, I don't have personal experience with all of the above speakers, including the 3.3's, but I must agree with Mejames when you propose that the speaker differences will be meaningless if listening to rock music. I think I know what you're driving at, and yes, there are some possible differences - in all parts of a system - that might be more meaningful or easily perceivable when reproducing naturally recorded acoustic music, but those qualities will still translate, to one degree or another, into the sonic result no matter what type of music is played, especially if well-recorded (although these differences may not confer upon studio rock an advantage that better correlates to any remembered 'absolute sound reality', instead just being matters of preference and accuracy to the source). There is also a flip-side to this issue, in that reproduction of naturally recorded acoustic music will not always stress certain aspects of a system in ways that will necessarily tell you everthing you need to know about how it will perform on rock. So for me, I always audition with natural acoustic music because I want to know the fine details of a component's performance envelope, but I also use rock as well, because that's what I listen to 75% of the time, and for a speaker especially it has to pass both tests.