timbley

I read Leo's and other remarks about the benifits of keeping the watts down with solid state amps on high efficiency speakers. The Panasonic is rated at 100 wpc, so I was concerned that sound might not be good at lower volume levels. But so far the Panasonic sounds great even at very low volume levels. I don't know about high levels yet.

I just got a Panasonic SA-XR25 ht receiver with full digital path amplification, and I must say I like it a lot so far. I'll have to listen for a couple weeks to let it really sink in. But my first impression is a very smooth and detailed sound at low levels and up to moderately loud. I haven't tried cranking it up yet. I get a slight hint of congestion on certain passages. But I'm not sure if that's the recording, the RF-7 speakers, or the receiver. It's an excellent sounding peice for a 199.00 surround receiver.

I just picked up this little Panasonic unit tonight for $199.00 with a 30 day return policy. I couldn't pass it up because the talk on these forums about digital amps has made me very eager to have a listen. Late last year I picked up a Sherwood integrated tube amp from a neighbor because I wasn't exactly satisfied with the sound I was getting from my Creek 6060 with my RF-7s. Talk about tubes got me interested, and I haven't been disappointed. The Sherwood has proven very enjoyable with it's much richer, fuller tone. But those tubes generate quite a bit of heat, and summer is coming. Also, I worry about my girlfriend running it all day when I'm not here, and perhaps accidentally leaving it on and leaving. It's 43 years old, never serviced, and I've been warned not to trust it. So now I'm sitting here listening to this cheap, compact Panasonic home theater reciever hooked up to my CD player through the coaxial digital port, and I'm simply amazed. The sound is incredible. Sublime detail and smoothness. All sorts of instrument tones and subtleties are apparent to me that I've never really grasped before. Snares and Cymbals are spine tingling. They sound so right! It's only the first few hours, so I could just be in a good listening mood. But I think this is one incredible little unit. Digital amps sound to me to be a major breakthrough. If you haven't tried one of these in your system, I'd give it a shot.

What's your source?

I think the potential is certainly higher with more channels. It's just expensive and makes things complicated. I have a few DVD-A, including Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides Now", and I think they sound very compelling in the 5.1 format. The only problem is my two main RF-7s and their matching tube amp completely out-do the RCA center and surround channels that I run off my RCA receiver's surround amps. It's just too much money now for me to buy all the Klipsch surround and centers, and then tube amp them all. Maybe I'd get more satisfaction bi-amping the RF-7s with an active tube crossover for the same money? Or, get a Linn-Sondek turntable? If these new digital amplifiers from Sony, HK, and others are really as good as some folks say, then the amplification part will be easy and inexpensive. In that case I'd definitely go for the extra channels on the recordings that have them.

I own RF-7s and love them. Comparing them to Klipschorns, I get the impression that the Khorns are more dynamic and vocals are more vivid. Bass also sounds tighter to me, less boomy, and easier to follow bass lines. I'm going to visit my friend and listen to his Khorns again soon. From what I remember though, the Khorns really have it in dynamics and clarity. The RF-7s seem to me to be a more smoothed over sound. But better than most speakers I've heard in dynamics and detail.

I had the good fortune to listen to top end Wilson, Theil, and Apogee speakers at a dealer in Washington, hooked up to giant Krell amps and all the good stuff in a specially built listening room. I liked them and could appreciate the excellence of their sound, but as you say, they were entirely out of my price range, so I sort of glazed over. Later, at the same dealer, there were some great sounding speakers hooked up to an Onkyo reciever in the mid-fi room. Those speakers got me very excited because they were in THAT room and I figured they couldn't be too expensive. They sounded fabulous right off a cheap receiver! I was ready to buy on the spot. It turned out, they were Wilson Watt-Puppies, and at the time, they were 10 grand! I felt I had been cruelly tricked. But it verified for me that it's not my imagination being deceived by a label or high price tag when I hear good sound. For years, the Watt-Puppy sat in my mind as something to be ultimately owned, perhaps a pre-owned pair. They were expensive, but could sound good with cheap front end gear. It was the pinnacle of potentially affordable speakerhood to me - until I heard the Klipschorn. Before that fateful day, I knew nothing about horn speakers except that they used them in old PA systems. I had no positive expectations what-so-ever when my friend invited me over to hear them. I thought they'd be honky, bright and harsh, and since he used to set up sound for concerts, he was probably half deaf and didn't notice. I came over just to humor him. The first thing he showed me was his Luxman stereo system he was using as source. Not confidence inspiring at all. I was prepared to wince and cringe just like I do at typically loud live performances where the volume and distortion are overwhelming. But then we sat down and listened to some Joni Mitchell, and I was pleasantly blown away. I just couldn't believe how clear and dynamic the sound was. I've never enjoyed listening more. The Khorns actually were kind of bright in his rather small listening space. But I loved the sound nonetheless because it didn't grate my eardrums, even at volumes loud enough to make conversation pretty much impossible. The dynamics and clarity in my opinion are so good that it just seems pointless to spend more. For me the Klipschorn reaches a level that's good enough to keep me from coveting anything else.

I heard them in Portland, OR. My impression was that they were best at high volume, where they sounded big and effortless. At lower volumes they sounded rather bland. I don't know how well broken in they were.

That's interesting. I wonder how they employed a midrange volume control. Some were suggesting that it's a negative feedback control. I read that you don't need the bias adjustment mod. You just have to turn the amp on it's side and measure and adjust the bias on the bottom of the amp. The mod lets you do it from the top, which is convenient. And here I am talking about all this stuff and I don't even know what adjusting the bias is exactly.

That looks like an interesting integrated. There are so many delicious decisions available. Did you try the single ended option with your amp? What about the focus control mod?

Thanks for the suggestions Bill. I am interested in tube amps. I bought Bruce Rozenblit's "Audio Reality." I've been studying the diagrams for his designs. I'm starting to get a grasp on how a tube amp works. I may try one of his kits someday in the not too distant future. I'm also interested in Loe K's crossover upgrade with the Jensen PIO caps. As for the previous suggestion that I lay off the Marijuanna, all I can say is I consumed part of a hash laden cookie a few years ago. It may still be affecting me. But if the stuff will make my stereo sound better... I should note that my amps aren't running at 100%, there's some hum in my Creek integrated, and the channels sound a little out of balance, not just levels wise but also tone wise. The Parasound has a fault protect circuit that won't stay green, but wobbles back and forth between red and green. Add to that my needle just broke off the cartridge. I'm definitely going to need new gear sooner or later, or get this stuff refurbed.

Strange, I noticed the sound seeming to get duller and duller over the days with my RF-7s bi-amped, fools style. The bass sounded boomier and, the highs seemed to be fading away. Something really seems to have changed. I moved the speakers further away from the side and backwalls to reduce the boom. I tried this position before and the speakers sounded too thin. Now they sound great here. The highs were still lacking, and there's no way to turn them up. So I went back to using a single amp. Would you believe it? I think it sounds better now. The bass is tighter and the highs are back to what sounds appropriate, but I swear much less edgy than last time I tried running this Parasound amp by itself. Next, I bipassed the pre-amp gain stage, and now running the tape record jacks out straight to the amp, which has it's own volume controls, one on each channel. I tried this before, and it sounded terribly etched and dry. Now it sounds very nice, smooth and natural, yet very detailed. Are my ears changing, or are these speakers breaking in and sounding different? I tried to listen to the record player in this configuration, since it's the best sounding source I have. But the needle broke off when I tried to clean it!

I called it foolish because some other threads referred to this type of bi-amping as "foolish." The reason given is that the full signal is being fed to both amps, so clipping happens at the same time as it would without the second amp. It doesn't really seem foolish to me since it certainly sounds better than either amp working on it's own.

Thank you! I'm very happy to be here in Paradise. I didn't use any crossovers. I just took off the jumper cables and hooked one amp to the tweets and the other to the woofs. I know this isn't the ideal way to do it. I'd like to try an active, or perhaps line stage passive crossover at some point. But it sounds a bit complicated. For ideal results, I gather I'd need to get into the speakers and bypass the built in cross-overs, allowing the amps to directly control the drivers. I've read on these forums that the crossover circuits have built in equalization and such that might be hard to mimick closely.

In response to Dean G. For once I got lucky! What kind of Klipschorn you got? Discommodious?

Yes, the Creek is a model 6060. I bought it about 10 years ago when I was on my first hifi frenzie. It's a nice 60 watt per channel that has the split/integrate button on the back so you can run it just as a pre amp or an amp, or as an integrated. For years I used it to power a pair of NHT Super Zeros that I had matched to a Yamaha subwoofer. Cory Greenburg was writing for Stereophile back then, and had a series of articles on how to achieve affordable hi fidelity. He recommended the Super Zeros with speaker stands made of two cinder blocks stood on end. He also gave instructions on how to make a passive line level high pass filter for them instead of using the subwoofer's crossover circuit. I did all his recommendations, except he didn't recommend the Yamaha sub. I just happened to have that around. I still have my special high pass patchcords that went from the integrated out jacks to the amp-in jacks on the Creek. It ended up sounding pretty good, but I didn't really love it. I almost sold the Creek recently. I had no interest in hifi anymore. I bought an HDTV and an RCA surround amp with some Radioshack surround speakers and center channel (featuring the amazing Linaum tweeter!) I was resigned to a cheap home theater system. A young guy not even in his 20s came over to audition my Creek, We went to a couple hi end audio shops, bringing it with us to compare to newer amps. I guess he didn't like the 6060 since I haven't heard back from him. Hooked up to B&W speakers, I thought it sounded better than the NAD and Musical Fidelity integrateds. Well, maybe not the Musical Fidelity. But the amp that I think clearly bettered my 6060 was the new Creek A50i. My amp put enough edge on electric guitar to make both of us reach for the volume control. The A50i made us want to turn it up louder! On big orchestra classical, I thought my Creek sounded particularly good on the B&Ws. Since I've started this long story, I might as well finish by saying that I got back into hifi when, after years of prompting from my friend Gavin, I finally went over to his house and listened to his Klipschorns. I didn't know a thing about Klipsch speakers except that they used horns, and so could play very loud. Gavin used to set up sound systems for live events, so I figured he was just into that super loud, PA sound. I didn't expect to be impressed. The Klipschorns suprised me with their size and looks. They looked like something from the 40s, which I guess they are! Gavin had them in a small room, with listening chairs right against the rear wall. I expected this might sound bright, perhaps even offensive. I braced myself for something very loud and harsh. He turned on Joni Mitchell, and within two minutes I decided that I was listening to the best speakers I'd ever heard. Better than even the Wilson Watt-Puppies I had lusted over for years. And this was just playing on a Luxman CD player and reciever, with long runs of zip cord from his closet! As I expected, it was bright. But sooo clear. Incredibly dynamic! Not harsh at all. We had the volume cranked high enough that we had to almost yell at point blank range. Still I had no desire that he turn it down. So I started learning about Klipsch speakers and wound up buying the RF7s just a few weeks later I'm very happy with them, even if they're not quite as stunning sounding as the Klipschorns. They've got the big, clear, dynamic sound I thought I'd never be able to afford. Bi-amped and playing vinyl, my gear seems to do them some justice. I'd love to hear what they do with good tubes, or the new 5350SE from Creek, or a SS from Monarchy. I'm also intrigued with Leo's Pio crossover upgrade, and with trying line level crossovers. How good can it get?

I've got me a new pair of RF-7s, and I've been reading with interest many of the posts on bi-amping and bi-wiring. Since I have a Creek 60/60 Integrated amp, and a Parasound HCA-800II, I decided to do some experimenting. When I first got the RF-7s I tried hooking them up to a cheap RCA surround reciever. As I'm sure everyone would guess, it wasn't good. So then I tried the Creek. Good. Then I tried using the Creek as a pre-amp and the Parasound as the amp. Different, but not neccessarily better. Maybe even a little worse. Kind of thin and lacking in mid-range. Then finally I tried the fool's bi-amping by hooking the tweeters to the Parasound and the woofers to the Creek's amp stage. Wow! There's no question about it. It's dramatically better than single amping. So if this type of bi-amping is so foolish, why am I getting such great results? The sound is much more lifelike and vivid. Imaging seems much deeper, more 3 dimensional. Vocals are easier to understand. Complex, loud passages don't go flat on me. Interestingly, LP playback seems to benifit the most from this configuration. Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms sounds so good I can't hardly beleive my ears. FM radio and CD sound better too, though. I realize my amps aren't the greatest. Perhaps with a better amp fool's bi-amping would make a much less noticable difference?

Hey GFH, Thanks for asking all those questions. I'm going to try this mod too, not because I'm disappointed with the sound of my RF-7s, which I've only had for a few weeks, but because I'm excited by the potential, and love to tweak things. Being an audio enthusiast is just too passive a hobby if you don't tweak a bit.