Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Seb

  1. would the amplification provided by a 4802 be as good or better than what is provided by a POA-5200 fed by a 3802?

    please refrain from the "you should consider this other amp" responses, I don't have much choice, plus I think the POA-5200 is a very acceptable performer, isn't it?

    but if the 4802 even comes close to what the POA-5200 is able to provide, well I think I'll bite the bullet and go with the big-*** receiver.

  2. ouch...

    i don't envision myself spending several hundreds more just for an adjustable crossover...

    talktokeith, why would i want to run the fronts to large? i don't want all the low bass to go to the mains, they can't handle it. there is so much deep bass info in the left and right channels, I don't want to miss out by sending that signal to speakers that will not reproduce it as well as my sub!


    'cuz not a lot of people have ever said

    "Pump up the treble!"

  3. if you plan on keeping your existing setup for a long time, then it would be a tough call: either go with the better-sounding center and bear the tonal mismatch, or go for the matching center, but bear with a lesser sound??

    if you do plan to upgrade in a relatively short time, howeve, then I wouldn't even ask myself the question, and would definitely go for the RC-3II. i would follow the same argument for the rears, however, I would probably try to save money and buy lesser speakers out back, and spend the extra money on better fronts.

    but that's just me.

  4. boa,

    that front+lfe setting is most interesting... does it mean that the bass from the front two channels is sent to both the fronts AND sub, or does it mean that the LFE signal is sent to both the front and sub?

    because if it's the former, then that's exactly what i'm looking for. didn't find any mention of it in the Denon manual though...


    'cuz not a lot of people have ever said

    "Pump up the treble!"

  5. keith,

    I did. there is no indication of a way to send the deep bass in the two front channels to BOTH the mains and the sub, unless I'm mistaken.

    maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I was arguing that if you set the mains to large, then you would not be using the sub for the deep bass found in the front channels, therefore missing out on some deep bass info because the mains can't reproduce it properly, even the RF-7.

  6. deang,

    "Others argue that it's actually cleaner because since the woofer(s) of the mains are freed up from playing low bass - there is less IM and THD."

    exactly. isn't that the point of the xover in the first place? I mean, people are always looking for more bass, so if there was overlap between the sub and the speakers because you ran the speakers full-range, you just turn down the sub's volume a little bit and there ya go!

    but freeing up the mains from the heavy bass duties reduces the load you put on the amp and the speakers as well, resulting in better sound, even with speakers designed to handle pretty low bass like the RF-7.

    the other main reason is that if you run the mains full-range (LARGE), then you will be missing out on some really low bass info that is found in the main left and right channel. unless there was a way to send the low bass in the left/right channels to both the mains and the sub, which, from what I gather, is not possible in most if not all receivers.

    am i missing something here?

    another good point imo is the the slope of the xover doesn't seem too radical. using a 6dB/octave slope would still send a lot of 40Hz material to the speakers, no?

  7. thank you boa!

    yes, it does seem that the low-pass is variable, but the high-pass is fixed at 80Hz, which IMO is pretty stupid.

    why oh why can't hardware makers give us more flexibility?

    what a waste, crossing RF-7s at 80Hz... i don't know if I can bear the thought of that.

  8. boa, i'm still not sure whether I understand what you're saying, but my sub does not let the bass through, it does a complete xover, meaing it takes the bass away from the signal and only sends higher freqs to the speakers. at least that's true of the speaker-level inputs/ouputs, but since the low-level RCA ouputs are labled high-pass output, my guess is it's going to act the same.

    the ONLY thing that bothers me about the 3802 vs. the 4802 is the xover, which isn't adjustable below 80Hz. what a shame! I'm certainly not going to pay several hundred dollars more just for this feature, though.

    one thing I'm still wondering about is whether the 4802 will offer me amplification of similar quality to the POA5200... anyone?

  9. I think a pre/pro or receiver used as a pre/pro would be a good option, it would probably give you more flexibility if you need to hook up other digital or analog sources.


    'cuz not a lot of people have ever said

    "Pump up the treble!"

  10. choose your center according to what mains you have.

    if you have RF-7s as mains, the RC-7 is the way to go, but if you're using Legends, then go for the KLF-C7. remember that the RF-5 and Rf-3 match up with the RC-5.

    as to differences between them, I find Legends in general to have more punch than the Ref line, but they are lacking in accuracy and finesse, and sound harsher IMO.

  11. boa, if I understand you correctly, you mean that the xover knob only adjusts the low-pass, meaning what is sent to the sub, but that the high-pass is fixed, meaing whatever the setting for the xover, the mains will never get anything under 80Hz (well, not really because of the slope, but still)??

    I doubt that. My guess is that the xover affects both the low- and high-pass filters, meaning if you set it at 50Hz, the speakers will get whatever's above that, and the sub will get whatever is below. again, i know there is a slope and the speakers will probably have to reproduce small amounts of 40 and 30Hz material, but that's not the point.

    that's how I understood everything, but I might be wrong. anyone?


    oh, and boa, how do you like your Marantz receiver? how did it compre to other models you might have tried? I'm hesitating between Marantz and Denon at this point...


    'cuz not a lot of people have ever said

    "Pump up the treble!"

    This message has been edited by Seb on 01-25-2002 at 10:59 PM

  12. from what I understand, the terms "efficiency" and "sensitivity" are often used interchangeably, even though they really shouldn't... one good question would be whether the two are directly related or not... my gut feeling tells me there should at least be a positive correlation.

    in any case, refer to Mike's response; 98 decibels at one meter if you feed them 1 watt. I guess that is the average sensitivity, so your question still stands as to whether the sensitivities are the same for lows/mids/highs... my guess is yes, or else it would logically create a very unbalanced sound (i.e. highs always much louder than lows)...

    the fact that these speakers are so sensitive makes me wonder about bi-amping... would it have any sonic benefits apart the obvious one of eliminating interference between bass and highs? in other words, would it really be worth the expense and complication, especially with a speaker like the RF-3, which is not really top-of-the-line?

    This message has been edited by Seb on 01-25-2002 at 05:52 PM

  13. forrest, I have considered legends for the longest time, but they are too harsh for me. the ref line is imo smoother (for horns anyways) and more refined. they may lack a LITTLE bit of the legend's punch, but I don't think i'd really miss any punch with speakers like the RF-7. forget about Legends for me.

    boa, i agree adjustable crossovers should be STANDARD on EVERY receiver out there, because it doesn't seem to me like the most expensive option, yet it offers so many more configuration options and can work with virtually any system. I would have thought that manufacturers had seen the potential there, but I guess they're expecting everyone to adhere to the THX standard...

    now I have a question, I don't know if anyone will be able to help me: in the back of my sub, i have low-level inputs AND outputs, the outputs being label "high pass outputs". now obviously this means that the sub's xover acts on those low-level inputs-ouputs. I was wondering, is there any drawback to using this as opposed to using the speaker-level filter (my guess is it would be much better to use the low-level option), or even a receiver's xover?

    at least, it seems to me like it would be a very good option, perhaps not as clean as using the receiver's xover, but at least much better than using a filter on the speaker-level signal, right? I'd like somebody to confirm this.


    'cuz not a lot of people have ever said

    "Pump up the treble!"

  14. boa,

    didn't quite get the reference to American Beauty, although RF-7s are definitely some good-looking American beasts...

    I was planning on setting the speakers to large, then running the low-level signal through my sub and crossing over at 50Hz or thereabouts then sending the filtered signal to a POA-5200, simply because my receiver does not have a flexible xover frequency. but that will change once I get a better receiver, maybe the 4802...


    'cuz not a lot of people have ever said

    "Pump up the treble!"

  15. thanks for your response, dndphishin!

    the main reason whay I was after the best I could get is to avoid telling myself later on "what if I had gone with those speakers, whta would THIS sound like?"

    that way, i know I have zee best I can afford, the top-of-the-line...


    'cuz not a lot of people have ever said

    "Pump up the treble!"

  16. I feel it's a waste using a receiver stricly as a pre/pro, when the power it develops is VERY sufficient for the less-critical (IMO) rear channels.

    I'll gladly get separate amplification for the fronts, but not the rears, unless I have a lot of money to blow. At the most, and to avoid interference between high and low level operations in the receiver, I could use an old Prologic or other receiver as an amp to drive the rears.

    This is just further illustration of my philosophy that you do need surrounds of reasonable quality, but they don't need to reproduce the soud as faithfully as the front soundstage does, for two reasons:

    1-the limited scope of the sounds coming from the rear (ambience, which even Bose can do, and quick and far-between effects sounds)

    2-the fact that our ears are angled to the front. our hearing is relatively poor to detect subtle differences such things as tonal accuracy, soundstage, etc... (actually most people don't notice such differences in the front, i.e. mr. Joe six-pack). so don't spend too much money on the rear, I say, it'd be better spent on upgrading the fronts with better speakers, amplification, video, etc...


    'cuz not a lot of people have ever said

    "Pump up the treble!"

  17. the system is approx. 80% HT 20% music, but that might well change with the advent of the new speakers!

    well, I think I kind of got my answer in what deang said: "The driver in the RF7 is immensely superior to the driver in the RF3 II and RF5 - and also has the larger horn."

    I think I'll bite the bullet and go with the monsters. Of course, I still have some auditioning to do, but it's hard to make up your mind in an environment other than your home's... plus, the system will change from a small room to a bigger room very soon!

    I will not be able to get a 4802 for now. Was probably going for the 3802 with maybe a POA5200 2-channel amp for the fronts. the RC-7 will then be in need of some better amplification, but I figure with the added headroom given to the 3802 by liberating it from it's left/right duties, that should not be too much of a problem, should it?

    That's another thing I was wondering about... Is the amp section in the 4802 approx. equal to the POA5200? because if it is, then I might think of waiting and going for the 4802...

  • Create New...