jdgonko

I appreciate all the comments on this topic. I have decided to go with the RB-61's as the room isn't all that large so I can spare the few extra db's that the RB-81's would offer. I have even considered using studio monitors, for their extremely flat response, but I think their near-field purposed design would ruin the imaging at a distance outside of 6 to 8 feet... Thanks again! Joe

Yes, that is odd but not too unusual. The RB-61's smaller 6.5" woofer driver has close to 1,604 cubic enclosure inches to work with (best case using the enclosure's outer dimensions). The RB-81's 8" woofer driver has close to 2,153 cubic inches to work with but the cone's backside likely subtracts from that more so than the 6.5" cone's does. So, the RB-61, with that extra air to work with and a very compliant surround, its 6.5" woofer could reach that low. The main question still eludes me though. Which is smoother in frequency response? I would love to see frequency plot graphs for both models!! I'm assuming that the RB-61 would and should be smoother since a great crossover blend for a 6.5" woofer and 1" tweeter should be much easier to achieve than an 8" woofer and 1" tweeter. Plus, the 6.5" cone of the RB-61 should be much more responsive, accurate, and damped. C'mon Klipsch...show me the real technical measurements! Does that +/-3dB jump all over the place in the critical vocal range? Or, are the RB-61 and RB-81 flat to around +/- 1dB where it counts? Thanks, Joe

Hello. Does anyone have an objective (measured) frequency response of the RB-61 and RB-81 speakers? I have asked Klipsch and their sales reps cannot apparently provide me with them. I would also find subjective opinions valuable too. Enclosure size does not really matter so I'm seeking the model with the flattest (best) frequency response and accuracy. Maximum output level does not matter either (that's what the floorstanders, in a different room, are for) so a 150W RMS of the 81 model versus a 100W RMS of the 61 model isn't an issue. The RB model I end up purchasing will be going into a smaller home office room. Also, the RB model I choose will likely be augmented by an RW-10d sub to enable the RB's to really shine in their sweet-spot (i.e. keep them from having to actually try and reach their low-end around 45 Hz). Thank you for any suggestions. Joe

Yep. I too enjoy his articles. That one especially is a good read!

My best method to actually "see" if a track is heavily compressed is to rip it (from the original CD) to the uncompressed 44.1KHz/16-bit WAV format (note "uncompressed" there has nothing to do with compressing the dynamic range of the audio signal - explained later - but rather that the track is perfectly stored bit-for-bit, taking up as much data storage space is its original). Do not use MP3 encoding or an MP3 source (even though it may still work for this test but it is likely someone along the way messed with the signal). Load the track into Goldwave and be sure the level meters are easily visible. Be sure to mute all other inputs you may have (just for good measure). Play the track and watch to see if the meters show a dynamic range of only like 2 to 3dB. An ultimate example track is "Renegades of Funk" by RATM. The meters will actually brickwall slightly under 0dBFS and STAY THERE. It is unbelievable. I thought my car audio system was dying or something but its just pure distortion! Yes, it does make the song "sound" louder because the average level is never below -1dBFS but still, so much lesser than it could have sounded. Kind of like those "local cable TV infomercials" that you always just mute because they are loud and annoying (causing me to never buy their product just for spite). And if someone says the song (RoF) isn't clipped because 0dBFS is never reached, that's because its clipping at -0.10dB (what the engineer set as the metaphoric concrete lead-lined brickwall). Most if not all newer rock/metal bands must check a checkbox on a Mastering Studio Waiver that says "Make us sound as loud as possible without regard to quality cuz we wanna rock!!" (which makes the engineer's eyes roll but he's getting paid so so what). Someone did mention how the Rush CD's became more compressed over the years. I haven't tested this but I'm sure its true (glad I like their early 80's stuff more, heh). Well "Tom Sawyer" right now does show a good 12dB of PPM dynamic range. Good Vibrations (Beach Boys) is around 24 After listening/watching a dozen or so heavily compressed tracks, you'll become good at picking them out by ear only. It really is a huge bummer that musicians allow this to happen to their music!! Similar to how much I dislike the MP3 format. People paying for what...25% of the actual data they should be getting...only because a math formula says you won't hear certain frequencies??? Baloney.