Deang

I'm no expert on these things by any stretch of the imagination. I'll just say that if you are going to go this route, I really think you should be more concerned about the quality of the transformers, rather than what kind of rectification is utilized. Think about the sound of your system and what you are trying to get to. Tube rectification softens things up a little. This may be great for Heritage speakers -- but what about your Sansuis? I'm tube rectified on my preamp, and SS rectification on the amps. I like it. I think with my speakers at least, tube rectification on the amps might be too much of a good thing. I think we should talk less about what type of rectification, and more about the iron.

Which you like the best might also be decided by what the rest of your system sounds like. Isn't it about integration, and moving the parts around to get the presentation you want?

Since I was building the system for the upstairs, I went ahead and ordered what I thought was the best looking finish. Maple

I don't understand the bit about the RF7 being a 2.5 way. Both cones are run in tandem, and cover the same frequencies. Now, the RC7 is a 2.5 way, as one driver cuts out early. No, the RF7 is just an old fashioned two way with the cones playing all the fundementals of the midrange. I've always liked the sound of two-ways, though there have been a few multi-ways I've liked: Dahlquist DQ-10, ADS 1290, and the AR-11. Along with what John A. said, it is usually true that a two-way has a smoother response, and generally speaking has much better imaging capabilites. To get this, you sacrifice power handling and low distortion at high SPL's. A multi-way will sound cleaner at the higher SPL's -- if your ears can handle the not so always flat response. The problem with most two-ways is that they crossover too high. When the woofer starts moving -- the midrange gets all mucked up. Two-ways with lower crossover points always sound better to me. The RF7 is an example of a two-way taken to the stratosphere. A fairly decent tweeter that can play fairly low, uses efficient cones that can go down to 2K without breaking up, and are built to take the heat. So, you get the smooth response of a two-way, and the power handling capability of a three way. However, even the RF7, I believe, would sound like crap with 200 watts unloaded into it. As soon as those cones start jumping -- you're in trouble. As long as the cones don't go coo-coo for cocoa puffs -- it's awesome. In my early adulthood, I listened to Original Old Advents. A simple two-way crossing over at 1000Hz. In a small room, with a Dynaco 400 and Dual TT with a Shure V15 type IV -- they could completely blow your mind. The Advent sacrificed the extreme upper treble to get the midrange right. They used a 2" paper cone tweeter that started to roll off at 12Khz, and had nothing above 14Khz. No three or more way could match it in musicality for up to 5 times the price. It's the sound I grew up with, and this probably has a lot to do with why I listen to the RF7's. Inversely, it may also be why Heritage owners don't like them -- the same cone midrange sound that I love -- they disdain. This takes us into whole other area -- horn midrange vs. cone midrange, and I ain't even going to go there! It's all about tradeoffs and what a person is willing to sacrifice to get something else. I like two-ways, and will gladly give up accuracy at high SPL's, to get silky smooth and balance from top to bottom. If I can get 100db at my listening position and still get the warm fuzzies when I'm listening -- I'm happy as hell. Now NOZ, I know for a fact that you can sleep through 100db -- so you better stick to 3-ways!!

What do I look for Aristidis? How do I find it?

The midrange and highs are NOT the same. Adding a driver and making the box bigger extends the low bass response at the expense of midrange coherence and clarity. It's also a well know and agreed upon fact that the RB5's are more dynamic as well. Anyone contemplating a sub -- should buy the RB5's. They also come in real wood veneer instead of vinyl.

Justin, It's about the music, remember? Heresy's will sound their best with a nice little tube amp. Go with the Scott or an Eico. It's the only way you are going to get the hash and grain out of those things. If your focusing on your education, you will want the quiet time and some nice tunes to alleviate the stress. You don't strike me as the type that's going to have your dorm room set up like "National Lampoon's Animal House". Also, this will work just fine for DVD movies. I'm sure two Heresy's and a Scott hooked up through analog outputs of a DVD player will totally crush ALL low end receivers and the dinky HT speakers.

Also, resistors are put in the crossover circuit which impact the impedance relationship between the drivers. But basically, there is no way to know unless you do what Arco said.

Oh, it's noticeable -- especially at higher SPL's. It's "cleaner" somehow. Put some 10 gauge on the woofers, and 14 gauge on horns.

I was willing to sacrifice some of liquid in the middle to get the power. Hey, what's an old hard rocker like me to do? I had completely written off SET because of the power limitations, but when these amps popped up on AudiogoN -- I felt they were right up my alley. Of course, the power doesn't really do much good if the tubes are going start ringing like a telephone every time I put a little juice to them. Because of the impedance issue, and my simply obnoxious listening habits -- I NEEDED CURRENT, POWER, GIVE IT TO ME NOW...uh, I'm O.K. I'm a little concerned right now, and am looking forward to getting home and moving some things around. I'm especially concerned about the AE-3. As I was gently tapping tubes last night, one of the 6SN7's was very sensitive to movement. The KR' ping a little when tapped, but damn -- there's a lot of glass there, and it didn't really surprise me. Tapping on the AE-3's chassis next to the tube socket brought major ringing, and gently rocking the tubes in their sockets brought sounds that only the best haunted houses could compete with. One tube socket/6SN7 is especially bad in relationship to the amp it is feeding. Since it was on the same side as the channel that's slightly louder, I did the following: 1) I powered everthing down and changed the 6SN7's around -- no change. The problem stayed on the same channel. 2) I powered everything down again and put in the NOS CBS Brownbase 5692's -- no change. The problem stayed on the same channel. 3) Repeated the above with the stock Chinese 6SN7's. Again, no change. 4) I switched around the interconnects on the amps coming from the AE-3 -- and the "problem" moved to the other channel. I took out the AE-3 and opened it up. I checked all the solder joints on the back of the tube socket, all the wiring going back to the RCA jacks, and the associated solder connections. Everything "looked" good with the exception of a resistor that was sitting on top of a solder joint on one of the socket standoffs. I moved the resistor off the standoff. Well, that wasn't causing the problem. I may send the AE-3 back to Cary and have Kirk give it a going over. I don't really know what else to do.

Max, the problem isn't posting pictures using links from another web page. The problem is posting pictures into the post taken with my digital camera, and stored on my hardrive. I could have used the 'attachment' feature -- but you can only attach one picture. Gee, I guess I could have submitted 8 posts. Randy, Your'e right. Living with tubes for the last couple of years definitely tames the 'wow' factor. I read once that the Super Amp DJH gets one 90% of SET. I think I can agree with that. However, it's also true that the Apollos do not deliver the liquid midrange of a 2a3 - and so this might also account for why my jaw wasn't dropped -- so to speak. Ed, Yes, I'm using the AE-3 DJH. I sure wish It had a balance control. As usual, I have a little bit of image drift, and it seems one of the Apollos has a slightly elevated output as compared to the other. Since there is no adjustable bias feature, there is no way for me to even things out. Looks like I'll be buying new output tubes. Kelly, Based on what I have been reading in the manual, it appears my noise level is excessive. I may have a ground loop. I think I may also need to go into the amps and check all of the grounding connections. I'm getting ready to read the info at the link you sent me on polarity -- hopefully, I will find something there that will help. Also, you were right, the alternative for the output tubes is the V52. Apparently, based on your posts on the Welborne Forum -- you favor the V52 over the KR300BXLS. Is this a direct replacement (drop in) -- or do I have to make a change within the amp to accomodate this tube?

Kelly, I sent you mail with pics attached, uh -- I think. AOL compressed the damn things into one file, so I have no idea what you are going to see. In addition, when I'm this tired I become just about completely inept. Jeff, yes -- these are the amps that were on AudiogoN Crash, where abouts do you live, and who's "droning"? Sure easier for you to drag some Heresies and an Eico here, than for me to drag 300lbs of SET and RF7's to you:) We might have to come back and report how you waxed my *** with two squawkers and an Eico:) As far as the amplifier "merry-go-round" goes, well...4 amps in a little over a year ain't THAT bad. Thanks to AudiogoN, each upgade ran me about $300, including this one. It's been fun climbing the ladder, and I've been able to try some things I otherwise would never have been able to try.

Let me guess -- I'm the only one that can see them. I don't get it. I actually have to find a server to host these damn things before they can show up here!! You got to be kidding. Upgraded forum? What B.S. I'll figure out a way to do it in the morning. I need to go to bed. What do you think about the microphonics problem Kelly? SET amps more of a problem in this area.

This post was my lame attempt at posting some pictures. Please bring back the old forum.

...buy SET ...and give the rest to the poor I had to find out for myself, and I have. These "pure distortion devices" make a luxurious sound. The Welborne Apollos showed up today, and I had a nice, extended lunch break. I hurt my back a little when I pulled one of the amps out the box while I as in a somewhat awkward position. I was fighting back peanuts and twisted my upper body to get the amp and bubble wrap to clear the top of the box. Damn, it hurt. Each monoblock weighs 12 pounds more than the Super Amp. They are heavy. Almost 50 lbs a piece. I buy solid state amps by the pound (the Aragon 4004 MK II weighs in at 75lbs), but never really thought about it in regards to tube amps -- which is strange, because so much of what a tube amp does is related to the transformers. Externally, the amps are gorgeous. I figured even if they sounded like crap, I was going to keep them for asthetic reasons alone. No scratches, dings, or otherwise. There are some micro-knicks on one of the edges of the transformer covers, but one would have to be as anal retentive as me to notice. The bottom plates are not perfect, there are some "scuffs" -- but the wood around the bottom edges are flawless. The KR300BXLS output tubes are about the size of a three-way light bulbs. Actually, I think they ARE three-way light bulbs -- and KR must be making a mint relabeling these things. I wiped them both down with some damp paper towels, and then hoisted them upstairs with my back already going into spasms. Yesterday I referred to them as "The Apollos". Today -- I called them many other things. I had everything all set up, awaiting their arrival, and so I just put them in place, put the tubes in, attached the wires, and powered them up. They hum alright, with a little buzzing just to make things interesting. Not too bad though. It was expected, so it didn't surprise me. I was letting them warm up when I heard a very slight, barely discernable thump. They do have some kind of internal startup sequence that I'm not quite up to speed with -- so I ignored it. After a few minutes I went to grab a CD. Remembering most of anything I wanted to hear was downstairs, I leaned over and punched the eject button to see what was sitting in the 9000. Pantera's Cowboys from Hell Did I really want to subject these things to that sort of abuse? I hit play and dialed up to about 8 o'clock. O.K. This is cool. Like the Super Amp DJH, but the leading edge of the transients aren't as sharp. It's warmer, and the remaing splash from the treble is gone. Most of digital "splash" vanished after I added the 9000ES -- now it's completely gone. What's left are cymbals that trail away into the empty space. Nice. Imaging is about the same as the DJH. It's a little different, but I can't put my finger on it just yet. Listening to this made me think about how good the Super Amp DJH must really be. I have to honestly say here that the difference isn't worth getting excited about. Actually, I'm glad -- because I thought the Super Amp DJH did a fantastic job of throwing an image. The Apollos are the same. It's wide and deep, and most of the sound just kind of hangs out there in front of you. The bass is not as dynamic, not quite the authority of the AE-25 DJH, but nice and tight -- with good body. Very natural sounding and more than easy to live with. The Apollos' bass is not quite as percussive in character, but very musical and articulate. The bass work on this Pantera CD is insane, and I could easily hear every blistering note. Like the treble, the midrange is also warmer. A nice glow instead of a hot white light. The Apollos somehow do this without giving up clarity and detail. I thought the Super Amp DJH kicked some serious butt in the clarity department -- and the Apollos match it, but without the brightness that usually comes with clarity. The RF7's seem happy with these guys. If there is a problem in the frequency response due to any dips in impedance -- I don't hear it. Of course, the amps are wired to the 4 ohm taps -- maybe this helps. At any rate, everything is just dandy from top to bottom. I thought going from the Bryston to the stock Super Amp was a pretty big jump in quality of sound. The move to the DJH version of the Super Amp was a couple of notches better still. The Apollos cover about the same amount of distance as the jump from the stock Super Amp to the DJH version. It just might be easier to say that all four amps are in the ballpark. The Bryston is in the nosebleed section. The stock Super Amp is playing shallow center. The DJH model is covering second. The Apollos are on the mound. I'll leave that distance between the mound and homeplate for Moondogs, Laurels, and cost no object state of the art designs. I will need to email Al K. and a couple of others regarding my findings. I'm sure these things will pinch up if I take them to the limit -- but that's not why I bought them. Even at 8 o'clock on the preamp, it's loud enough. I'll throw a little juice on the RF7's later and see what happens. I'll add some pics later tonight after I get home. Again, thanks Kelly, for always working to help me keep an open mind.

RB5's and RSW12 or SVS 20-39+ and Samson 1000 amp would be a superior sonic experience.

Oh yes, I think about that often. I thought about it yesterday when I read Colin's post about being embarrassed to hear his K-horns in the store when he bought them, and then getting home and hooking them up to his Bottleheads -- and being very pleased. Now, this certain thing that I hear -- this "rightness" in my brain -- I heard with RB5's and the RF7's with solid state gear. I can't help it the RF7's sound great with just about anything you shove at them, and Heritage only sounds great with 3 watts:)

Now we know the truth. Now we know what Kelly really drives those Cornwalls with -- for I see cables coming off of that monster. Unbelievable -- the Moondogs are only for show!

The rectifier changes AC to DC. Tube rectification works good in low power designs, not so well in higher power, higher current designs. Kelly, please say I finally said something intelligent -- it's been a long month.

It's mostly about preference. In the late 70's, when I first got into this stereo "thing" -- I started with the Original Advents and Powered Advents. In the early 80's, while shopping for something new, I heard the Heresys and Klipschorns as well -- but opted for AR-11's and G.A.S. In the late 80's and early 90's, I heard some of the KG series of speakers -- I opted for Magnepan and Luxman. In 2000, I heard the RB5's -- and now more than ever, feel the reason I liked them so much is because they brought me back to what I had in the late 70's and early 80's -- without the limitations of those designs. I think the ears and brain just get used to a certain sound early on, and subsequent upgrades are simply an attempt to improve on the general signature that one has pre-determined is "right". Because of this, it doesn't surprise me those who have been initiated into the Heritage lineup early on, find the the Reference offerings disappointing. The signatures are very different. I OTOH, find Heritage disappointing. Whatever it is in the RB5 and RF7 that draws me into the music, I find lacking when exposed to the Heresys and LaScalas. Some of you probably don't understand that any more than I can't understand how some of you can listen to a pair of RF7's and not be completely enamored. I find the comments by Maxg and NOZ the most interesting. Max, because he now listens to an old set of Sansuis, and NOZ, because the SPL's he normally seems to listen to -- would make it difficult to detect and differentiate the more subtle tangibles: imaging, low level detail, and overall resolving power. A two-way is a two-way, and in spite of the RF7 being rated take 250 watts -- would probably not sound very good with bass drivers jumping out of the box while trying to reproduce the midrange. This is the limitation of a two-way using cones for the midrange. However, I can generate as much SPL with the RF7's using a 15 watt tube amp, as I can with my DQ-10's being driven by 200 watts -- and distortion is very low. I can't even imagine pushing 100 "real" watts, much less 200, through a pair of RF7's. No, you are not going to get the lightning fast transients of the Scala, or the big sound of a Forte, Cornwall, or K-horn -- but the RF7 does not leave you empty. I'll just say the RB5's replaced a set of much loved Magnepans. Now NOZ, when I saw the pics of your setup, it looked like the RF7's were pulled way into the room, and it didn't look like you had them toed in any. At the time I thought how much better it would sound if you pushed them back to get some bass reinforcement from the back wall, and toed in -- to maximize the effect of the imaging. Of course, by the time I saw the pic -- you had sold them. Max -- when funds permit, you might seriously consider giving Reference another shot. Biwire, spend a little time with placement -- and discover what a two-way can really do. Do you remember when you said the following? What has changed? "...the RF7's - wow. Having heard the very mixed reviews I was not expecting much. This is the closest thing to a Heritage speaker Klipsch has produced in a long time IMHO. Like a Heresy but with some serious bass. That bass is tight and well controlled highs are breezy and mids strong. All in all I was impressed, and they do a lot better job with classical than the RF3's. Were I currenly in the market, the RF7's would command my very serious attention." "The RF7 is a stand out speaker from the show (along with the KHOrns, the Martin Logan and another pair of electronstatic speakers called Finals). The RF7 is, IMHO, the first of the reference series that can almost match the Heritage range where it counts for me - in the mids and highs. Previously I have found that the horn drivers on the reference range were lacking in comparison to the Heresy's (for example) although obviously the bass is far larger. My test pieces for the speakers were: Dire Straits - Private investigations, Three Blind Mice test recording with Bridge over Troubled water and Dvorak's New World Symphony Ist movement. In other words, rock jazz and classical which covers 99% of my collection. It handled the lot with aplomb, and I was particulary taken with the staging of the classical work, although tonally I might question the Kettle drum that plays such a large part in the first movement bit it would be a minor quibble. Trumpets, sax and voice are particularly well reproduced (possibly as well as on my Heresy's - although I did not have them side by side for comparison and was therefore working from memory). Strings are not (IMHO as always) a strong point of the reproduction on Klipsch speakers generically. For me even the KHorn over-emphasises the string draw in relation to the trial off resulting in a higher impact than I have experienced live. This can be wearing over time and tends to tire me as a listener." Now, imagine the RF7's properly set up, in a decent listening room, with gear suited to their strengths.

My "list" wasn't really skewed at all. It was a valid question. One, or more of those characteristics account for the RF7's supposedly being better suited for HT. My point is -- that whatever characteristic(s) contributes to this idea -- will also bode equally well for music. The Forte's have a larger front baffle with which to launch the soundfield. This, with the passive radiator -- probably helps to fill a room better. The tradeoff is loss of pinpoint imaging and some accuracy. The RF7's, like any narrow tower, are somewhat finicky about placement. Find the right spot, and they fill the room. At least, mine do. As a matter of fact, they pretty much fill the whole house. It is probably true that in one type room, the Forte might respond better -- and in another type room, the RF7. Yes, they are "bright", but I liken it more to "crisp" and "open". The RF7's can disappear in a room. I do not know what the Apollos will bring. I am hoping for much of what I already had with the AE-25 DJH, along with additional richness, texture, and better tonal accuracy. Basically -- I want to hear Marshall amps, Les Pauls, and Stratocastors in my listening room, not speakers trying to sound like Marshall amps, Les Pauls, and Stratocasters. I'm much like Kelly in that with the exception of my Magnepans and the RF7's -- I have owned monitors all my life. The monitor quality imaging is actually what drew me to the RF7. They sound very much like RB5's that have been pumped full of steroids. It's a "tight" sound, that's "big". Incidently, when I first got the RF7's -- in one of my first posts regarding impressions, I stated how late at night, at low levels -- how much they reminded me of my Sennheiser HD600's. Very hard for me to imagine not having a pair. If I had it to do all over again -- I would have bought 4.

I have a friend that runs my old RC7's (I used two for L/R) with 2 Adcom 555 MKII's (biamped). It can be an assault on the ears with some source material, and overall -- I think it's painful. The RF7's are very crisp, and the Adcoms seem to turn that crispness into shattered glass. In other words -- very, very, bright, and grainy as hell. It's a great speaker, and you are going to want to mate that Adcom with a tube preamp, or upgrade the amp. Get the RF7's -- you'll enjoy them as long as you don't take the knob past 9 or 10.

So, what is it about the RF7 that makes it superior for HT as compared to the Fortes? Better micro-dynamics? Better articulation? Less grain in the midrange? More Open? Better imaging? Flatter response? And which of these is one willing to have less of, while reproducing music? An accurate reproducer should do both equally well. I don't even want to get it into the 2-way/3-way thing. I heard the KLF 30's and RF7's less than a month apart on the same equipment -- and the RF7's were much more musical. I say since he already has a very nice set of Fortes that he is going to take to the grave with him, he should buy some RF7's, and experience the magic for himself.

I'm interested... please email at dean.wescott@wpafb.af.mil so we can talk offline

RB5's -- 2 years