ottscay

Does that meann we can buy them starting Monday? At the least I assume they'll be available very soon. Scott

Hey, Russ, if you are still checking this thread, would there be an appreciable advantage of going with the ZR1600 over the ZR1000? I assume the only difference between them is the power rating, and since the RF-7s are high-efficiency, I would just be spending extra money for little gain with the ZR1600...right? I will learn all of this, I will! Scott

Hey thanks, I'll look into those. Actually, I really only need stereo amps for now. My Arcam AVR-300 is no slouch for driving music. I just know (thanks to many posts by Bill, etc) that the rf-7s are beasts for recievers to drive due to their low impedence dips, so I want to drive them with sepearate amps and use my reciever as a pre/pro for the mains. Eventually I'd like to get seperate amps for the whole system, but I'm running a 7.1 system for home theater, and I think I'll be all upgraded out (read: broke) after the new speakers and the initial stereo amp. Scott

Funny, this is the second time in a week I'm defending rap music on these boards. >>>yea right, thanks for driving through my neighborhood with your ghetto music blasting!<<< It's sad, but of course true that a lot of people who are using music as a form of social coercion do indeed listen to rap. The use of bass probably makes it a logical choice, since a cheap boomy sub in your car will make tons o' noise with rap. Like I said in another post, for fans of rap (as a form of music, not a way to punish the neighbors) the "sound effects" in rap (e.g. distortion) are artistic choices that you wanted faithfully reproduced. Sloppy bass looses all the nuance (yes, there IS nuance...) and only gives you a beat to bob your head to. It will amuse some of you to know that when I visited Madison, WI a few years ago, I'd just gotten a new stereo in my truck. After someone drove by a stoplight with their music blaring out of the car (either rap or hard rock, it all sounds the same at 150 decibels...), a friend and I rolled down our windows, stuck in my Carmina Burana cd, and cranked the volume till we almost bled from the ears. Drove around town like that for about 20 minutes. I'm happy to say we got a lot of laughs from onlookers. Scott

Thank you Russ! I'm pretty impressed with the links you provided on the Carver Pro. Of course, I already knew B&K amps were good (but thank you, Bill), but they are also expensive. I didn't realize how affordable the ZR1000 is. Even new it's pretty darned reasonable. I assume that the horns on your heritage are similar enough to the RF-7 to know that there won't be any harshness in the highend? Thanks again, I'm getting excited! Scott P.S. I'm waiting on a few non-audio related auctions, and maybe graduation gifts, to finish saving the money I'll need to upgrade my system, so it will be a week or so before I can pull the trigger. So definitely grab that excellent Audiogon deal for yourself if you want it.

If you can swing it, go for the RSW series (12 or 15, depending on your mains). Despite the reputation that rap fans have for listening to really boomy subwoofers, you really, really don't want to listen to rap that way. So get a very punchy, clead sub. I don't actually think the SVS's ability to get lower will matter as much as the accuracy of the RSW series. I've never heard one of the Titanic kits, so I can't comment on them. SOmeone on the board just got one, so you could read his review and see if he tinks it's musical. Good luck! Scott

Ok, I am seriously looking at upgrading to an RF-7 system in the next week or two. I want to get seperate amps to drive the RF-7 mains. I've read some really good things about Flying Mole's monoblocks with Klipsch. I also know that B&K amps go well with Klipsch. I can't afford a new B&K stereo amp (or two monoblocks), but ebay regularly has used ones like the B&K Reference 200.2 220 Watt Stereo Amp for around a grand (which is pretty much my limit for the amps right now). What do you guys think? Should I get new Flying Moles, or used B&K gear? Or is there something else I should be considering. Thanks for your opinions! Scott PS, 70/30 music/HT.

Well, my rf-35 system is about 3 months old, and I am going down next week to Colorado to see about upgrading to the RF-7 series... See if you can hold out longer than I did! Scott

I agree with the others who said to set your crossover in the reciever and bypass the sub crossover. One thing I'd like to add is that how good a particular crossover setting sounds is not just a result of your speakers and sub, but also of the internal processing of your reciever. In my experience some recievers do well with a higher setting than others do. Right now my crossover is set to 90 Hz. So I would recommend that whenever you get a new reciever it's worth playing with your crossover settings again to make sure its at the optimal setting for your combination of speakers, sub, and reciever. Scott

"Getting out of home theater." I can understand all the individual words, but when you put them together in this order its just jibberish... Good luck! Scott

The rb-75s sound amazing, even in the local Soundtrack demo room, but honestly for home theater I think there is a bigger difference going from rb-25s to -35s than than the step up from -35s to -75s. Music would be different, but the upgrade to rb-35s will still be substantial and well worth the money. I would agree with TDK that there is little need to upgrade your rc-3 to an rc-35 in the near future. I am using four rb-35s for surrounds in a 7.1 system, and they sound fantastic, with a much better sound stage and better mid-range than rb-25's. Scott

Ha ha ha! Ok, I'm sorry. But I've owned both, and trust me, once you try both you'll laugh at the question too. The RW-12 may not be the greatest subwoofer in the world, but it will OWN the SW-10. I will be keeping my rw-12 at least until I can upgrade to an rf-7 system (at which time it might not keep up as well with my other speakers). It's far cleaner than the sw-10, and its output is impressive. I just shook a picture off the wall two nights ago while watching Attack of the Clones, so clearly output volume isn't suffering too badly. Good luck with whatever sub you get! Scott

That would certainly disturb me...more than I already am disturbed! Scott

You know, rap sounds great on my rf-35 based system. Even when there is heavy distortion in rap (and not all rap has distortion), you still want the speakers to faithfully reproduce the sound as recorded on the album. Whether you like it or not, the adding of distortion (or other rap-trinsic sounds) are artistic choices, and you don't want random speaker-induced distortion added in over the choices that the artist has made. If you guys don't like rap, that's fine, but there are certainly a few string quartets by Beethoven I'd pass over to pop in an Eminem cd. Cello concertos and choral music on the other hand... Scott

I never liked cats that much until I got mine. Feynman (after the physicist) is the adoration of my life. But in all seriousness, I never understood cat people before I recieved the little bugger as a kitten. Cats really can be great. Scott

My cat has never shown any interest in scratching my speakers, nor in chewing the cables. I have an aunt whose cat does chew cables...but she's not a Klipsch owner, so I guess she deserves it! The cat did show some plain old curiosity towards my RW12, up until the first explosion came over it (this was not intentional, I wouldn't torture my kitty), and he's kept a respectful distance ever since. So it will totally depend on the personality of the little furball you get your wife. Good luck! Scott

After testing a lot of high-end recievers, I got the Arcam AVR300 to go with my rf-35 based 7.1 system. To my ears it was far and away the best for music with my speakers, and it's implementation of DD pllx does a phenominal job of turing 5.1 sources into 7.1 surround for movies. The avr250 should sound about as good, so I highly recommend it from the recievers you've listed. Good luck! Scott

Ouzo...gah. I couldn't clench my fingers into a fist for a week afterwards. But you all enjoy Scott

That's why I now have the only "bar" I need (that, and Wyoming isn't known for its swinging night life...). I keep a good selection liquor, good music, lot's of seating, and the best audio system I can afford (a better one is coming too...maybe one or two months, and hello RF-7s!!!). Scott

I went to a local club a few weeks ago, the volume was high, but not bleed from the ears high. It was, however, bleed from the ears awful. The midrange was off, the highs were lifeless, and the damned bass was all over the place, sloppy and boomy all at once. I don't think it damaged my hearing, but it certainly hurt my ears! Scott

Yeah, I have to (jeez, this is runing into a love fest...) completely agree. Sony's really made some bad decisions the last few years. And as a fan of Blu-Ray, I have to say it's the consumers who suffer. Not that HD-DVD maybe wouldn't have won anyways (I know, it hasn't technically won yet, but...), but I would have liked to see Sony be more competative about rolling it out. Also, their handling of SACD has been less than stellar. And frankly their computer division charges at least 15% too much for all of their laptops. I'm sure there are other things, but that's my Sony rant. Scott

I can't disagree with the assesment that at this point HD-DVD is in the drivers seat. I just wish it weren't so. And frankly, Sony is partly to blame. Of course future technology will make the "paltry" 100-150gb maximum for BR seem trivially small at some point, but we are likely to be using one of these two formats for a number of years to come, and I still wish it were the one with intrinsically better storage capacities. That said, it's not like I won't purchase HD-DVDs if it looks like they're going to win (and it does look like this will likely be the case). But I'm also reserving the right to ***** and moan if/when bonus content has to be lower resolution or more compressed in order to get it on the disks... Scott

Ok, wait, I wasn't invoking some kind of "conspiracy theory" of evil corporations vs. pure-at-heart consumers. The corporations that favor HD-DVD are doing so for what I'm sure they view as very sensible reasons. That doesn't mean it's the best format for consumers though. It's just a fact of life that business interests are not always the same as consumer interests. Don't blather on with the various advantages of non-entertainment storage use; I made my living for a number of years working with computers, and I"m at least passingly familiar with them. So WHAT??! I'm talking as a consumer about which format has the most advantages for me and others like me who want lots of exciting hi-def content playable on my home theater. In all reality computer storage systems are likely to usee both formats for years to come, as we've seen with format wars involving writable Cds and DVDs. Other uses are perfectly legitimate to those companies/markets interested in them, but that doesn't define what I want to see in a consumer product in my home. What compatibility issues? Sony has said repeatedly that Blu-Ray disks can easily be made to have a dvd layer for backards compatibility with current dvds, and they have also anounced that they can produce multiple laser based players that play CDs and traditional DVDs in Blu-Ray players. Just because I think you're wrong doesn't make my opinon "hasty". I've been following the development of both formats quite closely the last few years. I'm happy to admit that HD-DVD has done more to speed up the time-to-market of both products because it derived support more rapidly from studios. That doesn't mean it's a better format than Blu-Ray, any more than the fact that VHS won means it was a better format than Betamax. What I want in my home are HDTV (preferably 1080P resolution) dvd-style disks that are mixed in uncompressed audio formats (possible with the next codecs announced by Dolby and DTS), I want all the special features to be of equally high production values/resolution. And for people releasing content that is standard definition (like The Simpsons...or pick your own favorite TV show) I want them to take up fewer disks. Don't think anyone will ever relase the entire collection at once? Fine, i'll be happy if they can at least only use a single disk per season when they release each season. More data capacity is still better for the type of content I want delivered, and HD-DVD doesn't offer any advantages that offset its lack of storage capacity. That being said, I too think HD-DVD will win, because the corporate politics favor it. Not a conspiracy, just a reality of the market pressures that drive these decisions. And as a consumer, I'm lamenting that those market pressures are likely going to provide me with a product that is inferior by the standards I use to judge the products. It's fine if you don't agree, but don't sit there and tell me my opinion on this subject isn't well thought out, especially if you can't even provide an actual end-user advantage of the competing format. Scott

Ok, I've read quite a bit about these formats, and I have to maintain that Blu-Ray is easily the superior format for consumers. With the smaller disk space of HD-DVD, we may not always get the special features in Hi-def, or if they are there will be less rom for them than on Blu-ray disks. Also, Blu-Ray is more scalable (to at least four-layer 100gb disks apparently) which better future proofs them in terms of larger/more content delivery. These larger multi-layer disks would alos let, for example, Fox release the entire Simpson's archive on a single Blu-ray disk. The real appeal of HD-DVD is not to consumers but to the movie studios, because a) they can cheaply convert existing dvd plants into HD-DVD manufacturing plants, and HD-DVD is supported by the DVD consortium, a group they feel very comfortable with (as opposed to Sony, who of course owns a few studios...other studios fear Sony will become too powerful). Sony has already announced they will eat the initial costs to make sure Blu-ray disks don't cost more than HD-DVD disks on the consumer end, and both disks have anounced that a DVD layer can be put on top, so that the disks are backwards compatible (though not in HD, obviously) with traditional dvd players. So near as I can tell there isn't a single consumer advantage to HD-DVD. Instead the question appears to be: will studio greed and corporate politics rob us of a superior format? Scott

I'd go with the H/K or the Denon. JMHO also... Scott