Sorry I missed this post. I'm assuming that was directed towards me and the NHT 2.9's. To answer your question... They ARE! I spent nearly all day Wednesday playing music, watching a couple of live concerts, and even a movie (Batman vs Superman). With any music that I played and/or music concerts, the loudest I could handle it in this tiny room was right at 100 dB peaks with a sustained 92 - 95 dB. The Carver amps were just coasting along at 10 - 50 watts, barely getting warm. Then came the movie. During certain scenes, I was reaching up to peaks of 107 dB and sustained levels around 98 - 100 dB. Again, the amps were just loafing along, barely breaking a sweat with peaks between 100 - 150 watts, and still barely warm. And keep in mind, these amps, with their many upgrades, are now rated at 395 watts @ 8 ohms, 420 watts @ 4 ohms. So this type of "abuse", if you really want to call it that, is nothing to these amps. Just like with the Martin Logan SL3's, the NHT 2.9's play loud and clean all the way up to where I can or am willing to handle it. They do not change in timber or anything whether they are playing at whisper levels or at full tilt. They simply get louder. The only real differences between the SL3's and 2.9's in this room is that the SL3's place the sound stage much higher (for obvious reasons), though the 2.9's still place the sound stage a foot or two above the tops of their enclosures. That and their top end is a little bit more crisp, more airy, more open than the SL3's. The 2.9's bass output has a little bit more weight to it and are possibly a little punchier, though the SL3's are certainly no slouch at all. One thing about both of these very different loudspeakers when talking about bass... They are both extremely detailed and tuneful. With all of that being said, the NHT 2.9's definitely play better with this small room vs the Martin Logan SL3's. Being somewhat crammed into the corners, those large ESL panels pretty much box in the rear wave that's bouncing off of the walls behind them, which gives them a very prominent center image to the point of being overwhelming. Even a somewhat heavy-ish, sort of box sound to the midrange. The 2.9's on the other hand simply sound clean and natural throughout the entire midrange. I'm very fortunate and grateful to own two very well known and highly regarded loudspeakers, and being able to compare them side by side in the same room with the same equipment on the same day. It really displays the strengths and weaknesses of both when placed in a small room. It's been a while since I actually measured this room, but I think it's 10' x 13' with an 8' ceiling. But as I figured would happen, the NHT's are a better match for this small room than the Martin Logan's.