pdalton

Thanks! Good suggestion about the height of the Rear Surrounds. When I wrote that, I was trying mostly to make it clear they wouldn't be up at or next to the ceiling. I just checked the spec sheet on the RP-8000F (L & R Fronts), which says they are 43" tall overall. Though not listed on the spec sheet, based on that overall height (& "eyeballing" the photo), I'm guessing the center of thr RP-8000F's tweeter is about 38" from the floor & the centers of its (two) 8" woofers are probably about 28" & 18" from the floor, respectively. Plus, it's feet tilt it up slightly (I think read 7° somewhere, but I'm not certain). So it does seem like ~4' from the floor would be a much better height estimate for the Rear Surrounds. And thanks for catching my spelling "errors". I did know the difference, but unfortunately "Autocorrect" was "fixing it" for me & I didn't catch them all. I'm goIng back to edit those others now.

My previous home had a Klipsch 7.2 system w/projector/125" screen, which I enjoyed greatly. But I recently sold that home to a Buyer who wanted the surround system. So I left 7.1 of those speakers, but I KEPT one of my 2 R12SWs. Now, I've bought a new home & I'll be using a wall mounted 75"/85" TV this time, plus I want Atmos, as well. This new home's room is smaller (~11.5' x26.5' x8') with serious side wall "challenges" that preclude having actual "side surrounds", so my system here will be 5.1.4, instead of 7.1.4. Plus, those same side challenges (& possibly a ceiling fan) create issues for "bounce" Atmos, so those 4 must be "in ceiling" units. I've pretty well decided on buying a pair of RP-8000F units (98dba, 32Hz-25KHz) and an RP-404C unit (97dba, 57Hz-25KHz) for the system's LRC speakers. All 3 of these have Klipsch's titanium tweeters & cerametallic woofers (dual 8"/quad 4"). I'm a bit less sure about what to use for the 4 Atmos ceiling units and I'm even more uncertain about what to use for the 2 Rear Surround units, in part because the Rears must be "in wall" units. Worse, I don't know whether mixing Klipsch units with different tweeter/woofer compositions will present a "timbre" mis-match problem or, if there are "timbre" differences, does it create less of a problem if just the Atmos units are different from the LCRs? What if the LCRs are one way and all surrounds (Atmos & Rear units) are another? What occasions this is that the CDT-3800-CII ceiling units (92dba, 56Hz-23KHz) I'm hoping to use have Klipsch's aluminum tweeters & 8" IMG woofers (different from the LCR units). (I did see that the CDT-5800-CII units use Klipsch's titanium & cerametallic components, but each costs more than twice the price I'd pay for each CDT-3800-CII; times 4, that would make a really BIG price difference!) So my first question is whether there IS a discernable "timbre" difference to consider here and, if so, the extent to which that might be enough to adversely impact the overall system if I use those CDT-3800-CII only used for the Atmos sound? NOW turning to the Rear Surrounds. If those CDT-3800-CII units are OK for the Atmos units, is it possible that a 3rd pair of those CDT-3800-CII units (installed @ about 5'-6' high on that back wall) could be used as my Rear Surrounds? Because of their sale price, using 6 of the CDT-3800-CI units for Atmos AND the Rears would be my most cost effective approach. However, I also don't know enough about the design of "ceiling speakers" to know whether they're capable of performing well as "Rear Surrounds". On top of that concern is that same issue of "timbre matching" in the system. Is that an issue if ALL of the "surround speakers" (4 Atmos, plus 2 Rears) are identical & the LCR units have those component composition differences? Or should the Rear Surrounds perhaps be true "in wall" units, in which event I can get a pair of the PRO-RP25W units (93dba, 56Hz-23KHz; but aluminum/IMG components) for far less than I'd have to pay to buy a pair of the R-5800-WII units (94dba, 40KHz-23KHz) that also have those titanium & cerametallic components to better "match" with the LCR units I've already chosen? Thoughts, . . . Please.

If I could afford Klipschorns, I assure you that I would have them and that I would be trying to incorporate them into out Home Theater, even if I had to find a way to build them into the wall. Unfortunately, that is not a problem I get to work with. I'm also not a fan of "in-wall" speakers for the reasons you cite; however, I admit that I have absolutely no actual knowledge about whether Klipsch in-walls would perform as well as or better than what I am using (I can say that the RSX-5s and the RVX-42 sound better than my previous setup, which was 2 Kg3s (L&R front) with 1 KV3, plus NHT dipole surrounds). Nevertheless, buying new speakers is not an option right now. Maybe I overstated it a bit by using the word "hate;" let's just say that she doesn't like to see them and we've agreed to try to make them "disappear" in the room. >> Does she realize that the speakers you have are some of the smallest speakers that Klipsch makes? I don't know whether I have actually mentioned that to her or not, but -- honestly -- that's not a relevant consideration to our dilemma. She has a set of 5 Sonance Ellipse 2.0 LCR in-ceiling mount speakers that she had in her previous home media room and which she would prefer from the standpoint of visual aesthetics, although she admits that she does prefer the sound and clarity of my Klipsch's So what I need help with is suggestions and ideas for how to make these Klipsch speakers that I already have "disappear" in the room without noticeably diminishing the quality of their sound. I certainly want to keep the flexibility of aiming them at the seating area, so if I were to do an inset, I would expect its opening to be much larger than the RSX-5 (or the RVX-42) itself. However, what I do not know is the extent to which (or how) placing any of these speakers into a wall inset might affect its sound. Nor do I know how these would be affected if we place them where we want and then build an acoustically transparent wall (something like speakercloth, for example) in front of them or, if not an entire wall, then perhaps a "column" around each of them made from similar material. Any other ideas, info from anyone? Paul

I have 5 RSX-5s and an RVX-42 (Center) in a 6.1 setup. My wife loves the sound, but hates the look, so we want to "hide" the speakers (behind panels of some sort &/or by insetting them into the walls & covering the walls & insets) around the room. I would appreciate any suggestions abouthow to do this, including specific materials to use to accomplish this. If we cut holes in the walls to inset the speakers, what effect will that have on the actual sound vs. mounting them on the walls (as they are now) and placing acoustically transparent panels around the room in fromt of where the speakers are mounted? Any thoughts/suggestions? Thanks, Paul

My Home Theater system currently consists of 5 of the Klipsch RSX-5s. Eventually (and almost certainly in stages), I plan to upgrade the L&R fronts to a pair of the RVX-54s, move the RSX-5s to the back, retire (or add to the back center perhaps) the RSX-5 now being used for the Center Channel, & upgrade the Center Channel to an RVX-42 (unless, by that time, Klipsch adds a Center Channel unit more closely matched to the RVX-54s than the RVX-42 now is). However, on the assumption that Klipsch may not add that new Center Channel I'm thinking they should, I'd like to think about how & whether that RVX-42 might perform as the Center Channel. Obviously, the RVX-42 must perform reasonably well with the RVX-54s, as Klipsch packages them along with a pair of the RSX-4s and an RW-12 subwoofer as a 5.1 system. So I'm assuming that using two of the RSX-5s as surrounds instead of the RSX-4s shouldn't sound worse, and ought to sound better for 5.1. Pursuing that same line of thought/reasoning/(whatever) -- it seems like treating those RSX-5s as side surrounds. and adding the other 2 (or all 3) of my remaining RSX-5s along the back wall as a back surround array also could be OK. I sure would appreciate any comments or suggestions if anyone thinks I'm making bad assumptions on this. The big thing I am wondering about right now, however, is: Because I will be doing this in stages, I might start with the Center -- So, how would the system likely sound if I go ahead and get an RSX-42 now and put it in as the Center Channel while keeping the other 4 of my RSX-5s for L&R fronts & L&R surrounds? Also, what if I were to do all of that and add the additional RSX-5 (which had been the Center) to the back for a 6.1 approach? That way, when I get the RVX-54s for the L&R fronts, I can just move those two RSX-5s to the back, also. It seems like this could be a way to make the best use of what I have as I am building up to where I want to go. All thoughts and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. - Paul

---------------- I previously commented on the Anti-cable speaker cables, they are expensive snake oil, but decided to sit this one out - until now. ---------------- "Until now" ???? Does that mean that you've changed your mind and now are going to try the Anti-Cables? - Paul

Since ~1994, I've had an NHT SW2P Powered Sub as part of my HT System. (NHT SW2P's/MA-1's Specs below, if seeing them makes any difference). I'm replacing the rest of my my old 5.1 system (LF/RF=Klipsch Kg3s, center=Klipsch KV3, surrounds=NHT HDP1s) with 5 of the Klipsch RSX-5s. It seems to me that there is more than a small chance that subwoofer technology could have improved a bit since the SW2P & its amp were originally released 13 years ago (1992). In light of that possibility, I am faced with the choice of keeping the SW2P to "fill in the bottom" under the new RXS-5s or getting a new powered sub to do that work. I suppose that I first am seeking advice about whether or not to make a change at all. While I've not had any problems with the SW2P in the past, I also know that I am used to it, so I may be missing something that I'm not at all aware of that should be there. Also, I recently have read that the SW2P really does not do as well for HT as for music -- and HT is 80%+ of how we use the system. Assuming I do decide to make a change, I would appreciate any thoughts about the following replacement options for my ~16 x ~25 room: 1. One Klipsch RSW10 2. One Klipsch RW10 3. One Klipsch RW12 4. Two Klipsch RW10s 5. One Outlaw LFM-1 (just because I have heard/read so many good things about it). Any and all assistance will be greatly appreciated. - Paul NHT SW2P: 10" woofer in vented enclosure. Frequency response: 21Hz-350Hz, ±3dB direct in. *** Sensitivity: 89dB (2.83V at 1m), 200W maximum. Impedance: 8 ohms nominal, 6.2 ohms minimum. Dimensions: 16" W by 16" H by 16" D. Internal volume: 50 liters. Weight: 40 lbs. NHT MA-1 mono amplifier and electronic crossover: Power rating: 80W into 8 ohms, continuous (19dBW); 120W into 4 ohms, dynamic (17.8dBW). Dynamic headroom: 2dB. Frequency response: 20Hz-20kHz, ±0.25dB. THD: ±0.01%. Slew rate: 30V/ms. Measured output impedance: 0.09 ohms at 20Hz. Measured input impedance: 22k ohms. Measured maximum voltage gain into 8 ohms: 48.6dB. Dimensions: 16" W by 3" H by 13" D. Weight: 11 lbs.> *** I have seen elsewhere that the SW2P really only goes down to 27Hz

I am changing my HT system from 2 Kg3s and 1 KV3, plus NHT surrounds and sub to all Klipsch. I expect to use KSX-5s for surrounds -- at least -- and perhaps for LCR, as well. An alternative I am considering is the KVX-54s for LF & RF, and continue using my KV3 as the Center Channel. From looking at the specs, I though this might be a relatively close match that might allow me to avoid having to also obtain a KVX-42 to use as a Center; that is, until I read your earlier post about using a KV3 with SF3s. Now I'm concerned. As you appear to have some familiarity with the KV#, I wouls appreciate your comments about the KV3 with the RVX-54s Hoping that it may help, here's what I saw on the website as comparative specs: SPECS RVX-54 KV-3 FREQUENCY RESPONSE: 75-20kHz ±3dB 63Hz-20kHz±3dB SENSITIVITY: 98dB @ 2.83 volts/1m 95dB @ 1watt/1meter POWER HANDLING: 150 watts max 75 watts maximum continuous continuous (600 w peak) (375 watts peak) NOMINAL IMPEDANCE: 8 ohms compatible 8 ohms ENCLOSURE TYPE: Bass reflex Bass reflex via rear-firing port via front-mounted port CROSSOVER FREQUENCY: 2300Hz ? TWEETER: 1" Titanium dome K-89-KV 1" Polymer dome compression driver compression driver) HIGH FREQUENCY HORN: Integral round 90° Exponential Cone Tractrix® Horn WOOFER: Four 5.25" Two K-1019-SV 6.5" Cerametallic cone, Poly cones magnetically shielded Another thing I found odd was that I couldn't tell from the specs whether the RSX-5s have a horn of any sort at all. If that's the case, isn't that unusual for Klipsch? - Paul

---------------- Which Receiver are you using, or plan to use ? ---------------- Onkyo TX-SV919THX I suspect this reflects my enthusiasm about the announcement of Dolby Digital 5.1 (originally called AC3) back in the 1990s. This unit came out before the AC3 standard was quite finished, so it did not include an internal decoder. A separate decoding unit -- the ED-901 -- came out shortly thereafter; I have it, but I no longer use it, as it decodes ONLY AC3/Dolby Digital and not DTS; instead, I use the Dolby Digital/DTS decoder built into my Panasonic DVD player and had BetterCables build me a custom cable to connect the 6 outputs from the DVD player to the DB-15 connector on the 919. At the time, I was impressed that ONKYO had obtained THX certification for it. I probably should have waited a while longer and avoided all the issues associated with having to do all decoding externally (that has limited my choices of DVD Plauers, for example). But it has been reliable and still sounds very good, and it has much more power capacity than I've ever really needed. As I recall, the power is 100W to each of the 3 front channels & 50W to each of the 2 surround channels. When this unit was designed, I believe that ONKYO probably was working from a DD or THX spec that did not have equal amplification to all 5 channels, as I believe is the case with most DD surround receivers now. This is probably the next place I will upgrade after speakers. I have been looking at Outlaw's line of products, either the receiver or some combo of their PreAmp/Amp separates (I haven't decided yet). Hope this helps. - Paul

For the past several years, my HT speaker setup has been: L&R Fronts: Klipsch Kg3s Center: Klipsch KV3 Surrounds (2): NHT HDP-1s Sub: NHT SW-1P (I think I'm remembering the model correctly) As you probably can tell, this has been an "evolved" HT speaker system: I started with the pair of Kg3s well before AC3/Dolby Digital came along. Once it did, I decided to build on my Kg3s, rather than buying a pre-packaged 5.1 system, so I added the KV3 when it became available because it seemed to be a pretty close sonic match for the Kg3s. I do remember that NHT's surrounds then seemed to be the best choice at the time because they were designed to achieve the diffused/reflected effect TRX suggested (dipoles? bipoles? I can't now remember the nomenclature, but each unit fires front and rear, with a third driver firing into the wall, and no direct-fire), while many other available surrounds were direct-firing, &/or angled (like the RS- series). Anyway, those NHT's Surrounds were well-rated, as was their Sub, so I went with those. Notwithstanding it's "One Piece at a Time" background, I really have enjoyed this system greatly. I am, however, about to get married and "she" says that the 3 front Klipsch's are just too big and bulky looking to go with her 3-piece "Thomasville" Entertainment Center furniture, which we have agreed to keep and use. Because I already had been thinking about looking into replacing the surrounds and sub with Klipsch units, I didn't put up an argument and I just said that I would replace what I have with speakers that would be less obtrusive. Of course, I want those to be Klipsch. I had a very pleasant and informative phone conversation yesterday with a Klipsch Support Tech, who highly recommended the Cinema 10 System (perhaps with an upgrade to the RW-12 sub). That system certainly will meet "her" criteria. However, as I looked more online, I saw the RVX-54 System and thought it looked like a possibility. Then, I began considering the possibility of perhaps using the RSX-5s from the Cinema 10 as surrounds with the RVX-54s and the RVX-42, instead if the RSX-4s. I believe the RVX-54s could be mounted at each side of the "Entertainment Center" and that their length and narrowness would be acceptable in appearance. (Besides, and this may be irrational, but I LIKE the look of the RVX-54s & the RVX-42 much better than having 3 RSX-5s at the front.) So, what I would appreciate is any opinions about doing any of the above, or combinations of pieces of each. (In truth, Klipsch descirbes the "system" for the RVX-54s with the RSX-4s as surrounds; but it seemed to me that the RSX-5s possibly might add more "life" to the surround locations -- but maybe I'm wrong? Or are they different from the RSX-4s in some other ways?) The combo (except sub) options I see are: Straight Cinema 10 system: 5 x RSX-5 Straight RVX-54 system: 2 x RVX-54; 1 x RVX-42; 2 x RSX-4 Modified RVX-54 system: 2 x RVX-54; 1 x RVX-42; 2 x RSX-5 I would appreciate suggestions/recommendations/cautions about any of these - particularly if anyone thinks that I would really be giving up anything by agreeing to go in this directions rather than insisting on staying with (and upgrading) my Kg3-based system. Also, for any of those systems, I do want to end up with a 12" sub (but only one). Klipsch describes both the Cinema and RVX "systems" with the RW series subs. But what difference (+/-) would it make if I were to use an RSW-12 (rather than the RW-12) with any of those systems? I'm not sure I really understand the differences between the RWs and the RSWs. Thanks in advance for the help and suggestions. - Paul