Deang

This latest Korn isn't like all the others -- which suck. Rob Zombie sucks. Lots of it sucks. I like: Fuel Queens of the Stone Age Mudvayne Chevelle Kutless Taproot Feezel East West A band called 'One Stripe' sounds pretty good so far... ...and a handful of others.

Why are those two guys always slamming their glasses together -- aren't they ever going to drink that stuff. There are some timeless cuts on every Areosmith record/cd -- most of my favorites just happen to be the ones they never play(ed) on the radio. Every once in a blue moon I'll listen to some of it, but mostly it just seems kind of passe'. I have the same feelings about a lot of those bands from the 70's and 80's. I think I just got tired of them. Craig, you might like Taproot. I wonder what you would think about Korn's new Untouchables CD.

Best thing I ever did for 2-channel was to get rid of my sub -- I'm not kidding. The only way to get things to gel is to run the whole signal through the sub, where it's split. There's some degradation to the signal because of the low quality parts in the sub's crossover. Less is more. I still say with any extra money you get -- dump the receiver and upgrade to separates. HK to BK would be a good move for you. Yes, everything after Rocks sucks.

Oh oh, I could have swore that plural possessive would be Williams'

I hate grammar. So m00n -- did you sell the Belles?

My daughter turned me on to Evanescence, and yeah -- they're good. It's a good sounding CD too. Seems it's getting harder and harder to run across 'bad' sounding ones. It's really starting to look like that after almost 20 years -- CD is finally delivering what was promised.

Well, you're not a virgin anymore. Welcome to the Truth and Honesty in Music Club. It does take a little getting used to -- give your ears a couple of days to settle into the sound. Once you get used to it -- there is simply no going back to anything else. Enjoy!

I would be very interested in your impressions running the tube preamp in front of the Aragon. I ran an AE-3 tube preamp with an Aragon 4004 MK II into my RF-7's -- and it was frightening.

The Cornwall really isn't 'Heritage'? Man, I got ripped off. Yeah, I did think about it off and on for a couple of days. I really wasn't slamming Heritage, but I do get a little giddy when the Heritage folks start freaking. In all honesty -- if I had the money -- I would have tried to talk m00n into a trade. I'm just strapped until the middle of summer.

When did I slam the Heritage stuff, in that first post? Geez, I was only kidding. I was serious that if I had the money I would rather have another set of RF-7's than the Cornwalls, but it's not because I don't like the sound of the Cornwalls -- I just really like the sound of the RF-7's. I just thought it was funny the way everyone was reacting because m00n didn't fall head over heels in love with the Belles -- like everyone had been violated or something. I then joked that m00n should go a head and tell everyone how the RF-7's kicked the crap out of the Belles -- so you're telling me this was taken seriously? What, has everyone forgotten my last 20 "Heritage is great" posts. Should we go back and dig up my posts in the threads where m00n was thinking about buying them? Anyway, what I said in the last post stands. Until you actually hear RF-7's with good amplification and sources, please quit making assumptions about their sound. Maybe you should do what I did when I bought the Cornwalls -- get a set in your house so you can create an informed opinion. BTW -- that '2 day' post only took me 45 minutes to write.

The CAV-50 is very nice. I've always wanted to give it a try. Here is a good review for it: http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/steve07.htm Since you're staying with integated amps, I think you should definitely stay with tubes. I don't like the sound of horns with SS preamps -- which is what you will end up with if you go with a solid state integrated. I agree with Leo for the most part, but musical tastes and listening habits should really be the determining factors for your decision. A push-pull, Class A, zero feedback, triode (wired) amp can get you very close to the see through quality of SET. They are a good compromise between the transparency and smoothness of SET -- and the control, presence, and huge soundstaging characteristics of a good Ultra-linear amp. However, you are looking at integrated amps, and I'm not aware of any that fit into the above classification. SET and Triode wired push-pulls both require very good preamps. You have opened up a can of worms with the Ultra-linear/ triode question. If you go to www.audioasylum.com, and go into the tubes section, and then do a search on the words "triode ultra-linear" -- you will see by reading through the posts that folks are about evenly split on the issue. This kind of thing is extremely system/ear dependant. There is simply no way to tell which you will prefer. My experience with the RF-7 is that it sounds more natural to my ears with an EL-34 Ultra-linear amp. I do listen primarily to Rock music and Pop, and have found triode push-pull to be a bit too incisive above 90db, and SET unable to deliver the goods in an unresticted manner. Simply put -- if you like to kick back and be drawn into the music at low to moderate listening levels -- go SET or very high quality push-push. If you like to push the envelope a little -- you'll need at least 40 watts and the higher damping factor that usually comes with the Ultra-linear circuit. Incidently, "Ultra-linear" is also known as "partial triode". Personally, with the RF-7's -- I would go with the CAV-50 in Ultra-linear.

Oh my -- that will be intense.

Well, now that the thread has died down some, I want to go back and address the posts to me by the two boneheads. Ill start with you Craig you say the only reason I like the RF7s is because they tone down the headache giving music (so called) I listen to. I can only say that this new genre of Rock sounds completely awesome through the RF-7s. So, I must therefore deduce that it is in fact the LaScalas that are the cause of your pounding skull not the music. You then admit that its true that the RF-7s/RF-3s do a better job with this stuff, and I could probably just quit typing now and say I won the argument, but you had to go screw that up by continuing to type. You went on to say, but any music, Rock or otherwise that actually has some kind of detail, and is not one big slam of mass distortion, will, and does sound way better on Heritage speakers with the right amplification. What does it matter what the signal is comprised of? If a recording is made, and it sounds good in the studio it should sound equally well in the home. What, you actually think these bands go into a studio just to see how sh!tty they can sound? Guitar tube amps, turned completely over, have a very distinctive dirty sound. Add a good distortion pedal or harmonizer into the mix, and things can get really nasty. In my heyday I played both a Gibson Flying V and Les Paul through a Fender Twin Reverb Ive used these sounds myself and I KNOW what they are supposed to sound like. Incidentally, Marshall and Fender tube setups use full range drivers no horns. At any rate, these are extremely complex waveforms, and the RF-7s can reproduce them without breaking up, without compressing, and without giving me a headache. The new bands dont use any more distortion than Robin Trower, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Hawkwind, BTO, or Van Halen did. I think because of the improved quality of studio recording gear, and improvements in players for the home the CD can finally pump this stuff out in all its true glory. How are you defining detail, and what other type of Rock or music are you referring to? Im 42 years old. I still listen to The Beatles, Three Dog Night, Nielson, Jethro Tull, Kansas, The Eagles, etc. Youre starting to sound like Kelly, treating me like I only listen to 3 CDs. I dont get what you are saying here. Cmon man, Ive got Cornwalls and the Scott in the basement, and I jump back and forth between these two systems daily. There is no freaking way Im going to say the Cornwall is more detailed than the RF-7. The RF-7s frame, or etch out the notes. Everything is delineated. Everything I play, any amp I put on them and it sounds good smooth as electric velvet. I do think the Cornwalls are better at retrieving ambient information, they are very airy but there is also a bit of a hard edge to most of the notes, which is always present detracting from the good things they are doing. They just dont get out of the way like the RF-7s do. Whats next? Well, you went on to say that Klipschorns, Belles, and Scalas can be some serious ear-bleeders if not properly placed, using proper amplification. O.K., good setups make a lot of difference, Im not going to disagree with you here. But better setups dont change the entire sonic signature of a speaker. They make good speakers great, and mediocre speakers good. As it stands now, I consider the Cornwall a good speaker. I like the sound of the setup downstairs and it doesnt slip into the ear-bleeder category unless I really push it. Im looking forward to squeezing everything I can out of them but it will take time and more money. By comparison, you can slide a set of RF-7s out of their boxes, push them into the corners of your room and live happily ever after. Ironically, I still believe the Cornwalls on the Scott, sound very much like the RF-7s on the AE-25 at the lower volume levels. It is apparent they share a similar character. O.K., you dont want to talk about the Cornwall you want to talk about the Big Three. I guess weve gotten to that point where you want to jump in and say the Cornwall is not a Scala, Belle, or K-horn. Personally, I believe its hair splitting. Whatever Ill move on. So, where are we? Still at proper setup and proper amplification for those Scalas, Belles, and K-horns, because you say, they are just too accurate, and bring out the absolute worst in the chain. Theres that accuracy thing again, which as far as Im concerned doesnt mean much. There is more to accuracy than dynamics. At any rate, its not accuracy that makes horns so sensitive to dirt in the chain its their high sensitivity. The RF-7s come in at 102db/w more than enough to reveal any crap downwind. What do you mean by proper amplification tube amps? There might be a few folks here who disagree with you. More on that in a minute. You then come in with this: The RF-7 speakers were completely designed to be forgiving of less then stellar Solid State amps but in turn are less accurate and articulate. Huh? Am I really supposed to take this seriously? Craig, Im sorry but you are just flat wrong here. You are free to believe whatever you want, but I happen to know exactly what equipment Klipsch used to voice the RF-7, and less than stellar is not how I would describe it. The RF-7 is plagued by the same problem as Heritage garbage in, garbage out. Less accurate and articulate, how did you come up with that one? It doesnt even make any sense. Solid state produces linear output. Tube amps produce non-linear output. Any tube amp with a damping factor lower than 5 tracks the impedance curve. The RF-7 was designed to sound great with great gear and it does. I dont know how to address the articulation issue except to say it is every bit as articulate as the Cornwall, and it can do it up to 110 db with vomiting up all over itself. You say you have many poorly recorded CDs you can play on your RF-3's, but cannot stand to listen to them on your LaScalas. You claim this is because the LaScala is capable of showing just how bad the recording is. What a shame. I dont know what to say here without sounding like a prick. Oh well did you ever think the problem might be related to the LaScalas? Everything I own sounds good on both the Cornwalls and the RF-7s. I know the Scala has hair trigger dynamics and a fairly incisive midrange it might just be too much of a good thing with some recordings. It may not be that the recording is bad. I mean, the RF series stuff has fairly flat responses and by your own admission this stuff sounds good on the RF-3s. Maybe you should spend more time in your pickup truck and AC Delco System. You tell me to quit making assumptions since Ive never heard properly powered K-horns, Belles, or LaScalas. Im not the one making assumptions here. No, Ive never heard the Big Three on good stuff, but I have heard Klipschorns, LaScalas, have owned Heresies, and do own Cornwalls. Like I said, setup and good gear changes things but it will not change the sonic signature of the speaker. I think I have a pretty good handle on what the Heritage sound is. You, OTOH, have never heard a set of RF-7s, not even on so called less than stellar solid state. So, whos making assumptions? You then finish off by saying, Any decent speaker will sound horrible with music like Chevelle and 90% of the hard rock produced today. They mix that music to play on boom boxes and computers!! I want to deal with the last statement first. Bullsh!t. Someone posted that about a year ago and I thought it was Bullsh!t then too. So, is SACD recorded to sound good on boom boxes and computers? Just curious, because I have new CDs that sound better than all of my SACD reissues, and I only have two SACDs that sound as good or better. Studio recording professionals record and mix using quality studio monitors in a near field listening environment. I dont think you are going to get me to believe these engineers go into a studio with the express purpose of sabotaging a recording. So, any decent speaker will sound horrible with music like Chevelle and 90% of the Hard Rock produced today. Well, youre wrong. It sounds good on Magnepan 1.5QRs, Dahlquist DQ-10s, Paradigm Studio Series, the big Bostons, the new Vandersteens, and the Phase Technology floor standers I recently listened to. However, that Chevelle CD sounds the best on the RF-7s, and damn good on the Cornwalls as well. Its a clean, dynamic, and well-mixed CD. I can hear every beautiful distorted note. There is no ear-bleed in my house. Id just like to finish off by saying ONCE AGAIN that I have been collecting and listening to music since 1973, when I started out with my dads old AR-3s. Trust me, I own more than STP and Chevelle. This hobby is about setting up a system that does the best job of playing the music a person likes to listen to, in their room, with their ears. As far as m00n goes yes, he could really turn those Belles around with a good vintage tube amp and some tweaks. However, family first and I sure dont think hes losing anything by beefing up that Reference system. O.K. Anarchist youre next: Since you wrote yours off a tongue in cheek, Ill go easy on you. Well take these one at a time. 1) Dean does listen to some nasty music most people would not want to hear very clearly. His Rf7's are well suited to this purpose. This stuff only sounds bad when its not heard clearly. The RF-7s are well suited to hearing things clearly. 2) Dean does need someone else to join his 'flavor of the month (week?)" club so certainly he would desire Moon to continue making impulsive purchases and cycle through equipment more frequently than he needs to shave. Actually, its more like Flavor of the Quarter Club. Over the last year or so, I would hang on to something on average of 3 to 4 months. I got to try several different things over this period of time, and since I was able to experience things first hand, I was able to draw some concrete conclusions based on experience. 3) Dean feels compelled to put down Heritage as a review of his posts show he went over the top denouncing Heritage without hearing it and then ate crow after listening to his first set of Heritage speakers. This is for the most part true. I thought my first Heritage experience was outstanding. I really like the Heresies. I was just telling Craig a couple of weeks ago that a set of Heresies out of the box, sound better than Cornwalls. The Cornwall takes a little bit of work to do Rock-n-Roll. Not much though. 4) Dean's beloved RF7's had to undergo surgery in order to meet his discerning ear although he praised them to no end prior to said surgery. I believe you claimed they were the 'cats meow' only to turn around and have them neutered. The RF-7s, unmodified, are some of the best speakers I have ever heard. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I neutered my RF-7s. I built my crossovers using some of the best parts in the industry, and every value is identical with the exception of 1 resistor, which I lowered 2 tenths of an ohm. I replaced $50 worth of parts with $200 worth of parts and lowered the noise floor into the netherworld. Every aspect of the sound has been improved, and an already great speaker is now greater. 5) Dean has stated he has a fine appreciation for cheap, bookshelf speakers so his ear and judgement must be questioned. Define cheap bookshelf speakers. RB-5? Old Advents? AR 11s? 6) Given he spends his weekends surrounded by multitudes of computers and the accompanying fan noise, it should be no surprise his ability to discern the greatness of Heritage versus the cacophony of sound produced by his mass-market, targeted-to-the-neophytes-of-the-audio-world RF7's is significantly impaired. 25 years in the industry means I have some trouble tuning the G-string on my guitar. Other than that I think my hearing is pretty good. So, greatness of Heritage huh? What great part are you referring too? The screaming midrange, the hollowness of the bass, or the nice muddled lower midrange?

Don't worry about upgrading that front end until you hear your AMC stuff with the K-horns. You may end up liking the way it sounds. After you have it all together for a few months, you can begin assessing where you want to go with it.

Oh yes, idiot questions -- I love these. Here are my favorites. One of these really pisses me off. Two men play 5 games of chess, each man wins the same number of games and there are no ties. Explain. Divide 30 by half and add 10, what is the answer? Two American coins when together add up to 30 cents. One is not a quarter. What are the two coins? If you have a match and you walk into a room where there is an oil burner, a kerosene lamp, and a wood stove, which would you light first? Can you continue the following sequence of letters: OTTFFSSE..........? A bottle of wine costs $10. If the wine is worth $9 more than the bottle, what is the value of the bottle? You have two hourglasses, a 4-minute glass and a 7-minute glass. You want to measure 9 minutes. How? A man bought a painting for $70, sold it for $80, bought it back again for $90, and sold it again for $100. How much profit did he make?

Craig has somehow managed not to get to full of himself. He may be as stubborn as an old mule, but he's not big headed or arrogant. He definitely knows some things about amps. Yeah, once you experience a decent tube set up -- the thought of going back to solid state is laughable.

The Star Mangled Banner by Rosanne.

"The volume, though undistorted and totally clean, can get to the point where it hurts my ears..........with just a couple of watts!" You just think it's undistorted. If it was really clean, it wouldn't hurt your ears. The Welborne Apollos at 18wpc would have me gritting my teeth at 95db. The 60 wpc Quicksilvers can take me to 110 db with no strain to my ears whatsoever. With just under 4 watts to begin with, there is constriction and clipping. SET just makes the clipping tolerable -- but it's not 'clean'. SET sounds awesome -- but I don't think anyone should kid themselves regarding the compression of dynamics at anything more than a watt.

Everything related to this hobby is subjective: Tubes, caps, wire, resistors, source components, front end circuit types -- and on and on it goes. As far as the KR tubes go -- I feel they are the only current production tubes that have old world quality. Now, when I hear someone say that 'xyz' product has 'no soul' -- it's generally an indication to me that it's probably something I should check out. Yeah, 'no soul' means it probably has excellent transients, drive, and high frequency extension.

Man Craig, you PMSing or something? I think m00n is pretty cool. He goes completely out on a limb trying the Belles, and now he just doesn't feel like sawing the limb off while he's sitting on it. Damn, give him credit -- a lot of trouble just to see what they would be like. As far as I know, he is the only person besides me to do it -- just to see. The Belles didn't drop his jaw -- and you all just can't believe it!! I think it's hilarious. If I had the money for another set of RF-7's -- the Cornwalls would be GONE! It'll be another 6 months before I get the Cornwalls to a point where they can even step into the ring with the RF-7's. Hard to believe? Maybe for you Heritage loons who have only heard RF-7's on 2nd rate HT receivers. I think Chris Robinson is the only person to have heard them on anything decent (Leo's Moondogs). Go ahead and tell the truth m00n -- tell everyone how those little wanna be horns just kick the sh!t out of those Belles. I wouldn't change out the RC-7 -- any money you manage to scrub together should go towards upgrading your receiver to separates. You'll also need a little extra so I can build those new crossovers for your RF-7's.

I had my 299a up there for a while, but at the time I had the speakers 36" from the back wall. Since I have the Cornwall/Scott system downstairs for low level/near field listening -- I've got the RF-7 system set up for balls to wall. I'll eventually get my 299b up there just to see how she compares to the Quicksilvers and Cary -- I'm in no big hurry though.

I have found the smaller signal tubes on preamps to be more microphonic than power tubes (with the exception of the 1st generation KR300BXLS' I had). I do think it's a good idea to put the dampers on tubes that are sanwiched between transformers. The Pearls are nice, although a little pricey.

15.5 inches This seems to be optimum with this setup. Decent growl on the low bass and still punchy.

If your Scott has a case, with a cover -- than she has no need to worry. Temple, my 2 1/2 year old daughter -- comes up regularly to dance in front of the system. She understands the 'hot glass' thing. I just took her over and explained it to her -- and we both held our hands over the tubes to feel the heat. She keeps a safe distance. My 11 and 13 year olds both know how to properly power up and power down the system, and sometimes watch movies on the system while I'm at work. Kids are smart -- you just have to take the time to explain things to them.

"...there are analog meters on the amp and i have hit peaks of 110 watts listening to some music...remember...the KLF-30's are rated at 102 db @ 1 watt @ 1 meter efficiency....a lot of CLEAN QUALITY POWER gives you headroom if you want to listen to your music at that higher level..." This is why I recommend no less than 20 watts for moderate listening levels, and much more if you want to hit realistic levels WITH ALL THE DYNAMICS INTACT. I ran a 200 wpc Luxman on my RB-5's, and it was absolutely killer. Of course, I can now reach the same high SPL's - cleanly, with 60 tube watts on my RF-7's.