wireless

Would anyone care to share their thoughts on the lower end of the center channel frequency range? I'm getting ready to replace my current HT Legend based system with some smaller Klipsch speakers specifically either the Rx-25 or Rx-35 series. There's one hangup though with the center speaker frequency range comparison between the rc-25 and rc-35. The rc-35 goes down to 56 Hz while the RC-25 only goes down to 69 Hz. (There's not a lot of difference in the surrounds and fronts.) For the center I need a small speaker. Almost all TV stands only have 9" between the lower shelves. The RC-25 fits the bill coming in at 9" exactly. No doubt this is not a coincidence. I'm left wondering how much this smaller size affects the sound in practice. How much DVD information is transmitted on the center at less than 69 Hz? Doing some research on the net indicates that the human voice does not go down that low. I wonder if they included James Earl Jones. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I'm not planning on using this system for music much; I have 2-channel vintage system set up for that.

I completely agree with you about the Denon. I had a 4800 for 3 months and didn't care for it. Returned it for a Marantz SR-8000 which I'm very happy with. My problem with the newer (last 5 or 10 years) Yamaha stuff is they put too much junk on them. All those DSP modes - they must have hundreds by now. What ever happened to just reproducting the musical signal? It seems to me if they put so much effort into the other stuff then the regular circuitry is going to suffer or at least be cheaped out to pay for the DSP. With all that gee whiz stuff figuratively hangin' off the receiver, it's just tacky. I have an 80's Yamaha amp and preamp which I like very much. IMO Yamaha peaked back then. As far as the 24 bit/192Khz decoder, it's meaningless as far as the quality of sound goes. I bought a Toshiba DVD player the other day with same and musically it sounded like crap. My computer sound card had a much, yes much, better sound than it did. The Toshiba went back too. -David

If you're interested... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3026797214 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3026800939 I'm selling these because I've going with something smaller in the den - still Klipsch of course. I moved my Forte's that were being used as surrounds upstairs and set up a vintage 2-channel system that does fine for music. -David

If you're interested... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3026797214 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3026800939 I'm selling these because I've going with something smaller in the den - still Klipsch of course. -David

What does this mean as a spec on the new Klipsch speakers. Of course impedance changes with frequency but what does 8 ohm compatible mean? Compatible with what? -Dave

I do prefer the 2.83V*1m for it's improved accuracy... and the market (ie: other brands) is moving towards this voltage based spec... hopefully Klipsch will go back and re-test their existing models for consistancy. ---------------- I keep hearing that the v*m method is more accurate but aren't we talking about accurate in terms of the voltage input? What does this have to do with the real world spec for output? All holding the input at 2.83 v means is that the current will have to adjust to whatever the impedance is. In other words, to match the "improved" input metric, the amp had better have a very good current providing ability which as we all know isn't the case for 95% of the amps out there. And of course this is going to vary the input wattage making the output sensitivity spec just as nebulous as the "improved accuracy" input voltage metric. And as far as preciseness goes, what does "8 ohm compatible" mean? Does that really tell you anything? Sure we know the impedance varies with frequency but how much? Why not offer some limits or ranges? If it's dropping down to 1 ohm over a certain frequency range and current is varying all over the place, all this has done is buried the varying factor under the constant voltage and ostensibly make it sound like a more accurate measurement.

---------------- On 5/14/2003 3:18:47 PM formica wrote: Given the above info and two different speakers (one 4ohm and the other 8ohm) rated at the same efficiency from 2.83V*1m... plugged into the same amp and with the volume knob in the same position... they will play at the same volume. seems even more precise than 1W*1m Rob. ---------------- [/blockquote> Yes, I agree, but the problem is we're given two different groups of speakers tested with two different methods. On one we have all the RF and earlier speakers tested with the 1w/m method and the recently released RF line (15,25,35) tested with the new method. What will the amp do with the volume in the same position on speakers from both groups with sensitivities that are rated the same? How difficult is it to measure the sensitivity of the Klispch speakers that are in current production using the new method? The current scenario is similar to a car company having some of their cars' horsepower spec in brake horsepower (BHP) and the other half given in horsepower at the crank. An apples to apples comparison would be helpful.

I think for $500 you should expect a pretty good CD player. For $1000 you can buy a very good Receiver that will decode regular CD nicely. Used even lower or else buy a Rega. I took the aforementioned Toshiba back the next day. Instead, I'm going to buy a high-end M-audio sound card for my computer and use it for CDs mp3s etc.

From the Home theater forum, I posted this but thought it might be better discussed here... ---------------- On 4/30/2003 11:22:25 AM dougdrake wrote: ---------------- On 4/30/2003 9:36:28 AM wireless wrote: BTW, anyone know why the new speakers' sensitivity is rated in volts/meter instead of the old watts/meter? -David ---------------- OOH, OOH, OOH - I know, I know --- The wattage going into a speaker fluctuates with the impedance of the speaker, and the impedance varies depending on the frequency being played. To eliminate that variable, they switched to volts/meter because the voltage can be more explicity controlled and stated. 2.83 volts is equivalent to 1 watt at 8 ohms impedance... DD ---------------- So does that mean when power is calculated for a 4 ohm speaker (or an 8 ohm speaker whose impedance varies down to 4 ohms) with 2.83 volts, that the input wattage is 2 watts? Thus, by using this new method, Klipsch is able to get 3 dB more input at 4 ohms and hence is able to effectively double the sensitivity by simply changing the measuring technique?

---------------- On 4/30/2003 11:22:25 AM dougdrake wrote: ---------------- On 4/30/2003 9:36:28 AM wireless wrote: BTW, anyone know why the new speakers' sensitivity is rated in volts/meter instead of the old watts/meter? -David ---------------- OOH, OOH, OOH - I know, I know --- The wattage going into a speaker fluctuates with the impedance of the speaker, and the impedance varies depending on the frequency being played. To eliminate that variable, they switched to volts/meter because the voltage can be more explicity controlled and stated. 2.83 volts is equivalent to 1 watt at 8 ohms impedance... DD ---------------- So does that mean when power is calculated for a 4 ohm speaker (or an 8 ohm speaker whose impedance varies down to 4 ohms) with 2.83 volts, that the input wattage is 2 watts? Thus, by using this new method, Klipsch is able to get 3 dB more input at 4 ohms and hence is able to effectively double the sensitivity by simply changing the measuring technique?

---------------- On 5/6/2003 3:55:50 AM boomer9911 wrote: Toshiba invented the DVD, nothing else to say, except choose wisely, I would say one more thing - Don't buy a Toshiba 2900 for CD playback. I bought one last week and the quality of it's CD playback was terrible. Clearly inferior sound. My old CD player and my computer card sounded much better.

Did you get a good price on them or did you pay msrp?

I tend to agree with you. I've got a pair of Forte's and they are the easiest speakers to place that I own. They sound good just about anywhere and placement only tends to accentuate the passive woofer.

I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. I've been considering buying something such as a Rega. Meanwhile, last night I grabbed a Toshiba 2900 at Bestbuy for $80 so I'd have something to get by with until I decided. Got it home, hooked it up and it was clearly inferior. In fact it sounded like crap. To make sure it wasn't just me that particular day, I hooked up my computer to my pre-amp and also listened to my late 80's high end Technics player. Also listened to stuff right off the hard drive of my computer. There were clear differences in all three. The computer playing out through a Soundblaster sounded listenable - pretty good actually. Clearly better than the Toshiba. The Technics player sounds the best but it skips eventually. (That's why I'm in the market for new CD player.) In short order, I decided to take the Toshiba back. There was no question that it wouldn't do. They adverstised the 24 bit 192 MHz Dac but they clearly didn't put any money in the whole circuit path. Okay, I didn't expect much for $80 but thought a standard Redbook would sound at least decent if not overly bright. Basically the Toshiba failed in every area - detail, base, highs. At this point I'm thinking about going with a high end audio card in my computer since it sits close to my 2-channel system. I'll have to do some more research on that. -Dave

They sound pretty good. I was remembering I had some Advents from the 70's and after about 10 years the rubber/foam around the woofer literally disentigrated. I wondered if this was a common issue with other speakers because if the deterioration was slow, it wouldn't be noticeable, and then I would think there'd be some air leakage impacting performance.

I've got some Forte's from the 80's and just set them back up in a 2-channel system. I was wondering if the sound or the components inside degrade over time and how much. They still sound great but I havn't got my 2-channel system finished yet so I'm witholding my final judgement on them. Is this one of those things where if you can't notice any problems don't go looking for them? -David

Yes, I agree they may be somewhat of a downgrade from KLF-20s but I've got to do something to get the den looking better and big speakers all around just don't cut it. I got my 2-channel system set up with Forte's in another room so that will do quite nicely for music. I'm not interested in 5 channel for music right now. I went by an audio shop a couple of days ago and listened to the rf-3's. Actually I thought they sounded pretty good. As far as musical clairity, I thought they were better than the KLF-20s. As if oft-repeated, they didn't sound quite as open but overall very good. On the downside I thought the rs-3's looked very cheap which is the same thing I thought when I received the 20's and compared them to the Forte's and Hereseys I also owned. It seems like Klipsch is becoming the GM of speakers sometimes they way they keep cheaping down the exteriors. The dealer just got in the new RF-35's and rf-25's which are supposed to have improved looks. The Klipsch rep said the 25's sound better than the rf-3's and the woofer is smaller. I told him to work up a quote on the 25's. I think they might just be what I need. Overall smaller but still a quality sound. I'll let my LF-10 pick up the base below the 46Hz rating of the rf25's. -David

Thanks for the comments. You've definitely given me some ideas. I'm going to get the base system assembled and go from there. -Dave

What does it mean when a CD player say its "digital-to-analog converters work at 24-bit, 192 kHz resolution." Is this just marketing or engineering overkill? Aren't CD's recorded at 44.1 khz and at an 8-bit resolution? -David

I recommend Marantz. I bought a Denon 4800 and kept it for several months and didn't care for it for a number of reasons. I returned it and bought a Marantz 8000 and it was clearly better both soundwise and in ease of use. I agree with you on the Yamaha. The new Yamaha's have so much junk and sound modes on them that you feel they are going for the pizazz and baubles rather than concentrating on pure audio quality. -David

I'm thinking about purchasing an rf3-based system to replace my unshielded klf-20 based system. I've read of some problems with the "floating" grills. Is it really a problem? The rf-35 is supposed to fix this problem but I noticed the dimensions on the new rc-35 center channel box are a bit larger and would not fit in my proposed setup. Secondly the specs on the rs-35 surround do not compare favorably with the rs-3II's. They lose 20 hz on the low end. I can't help but think, while surrounds aren't full range speakers by any means, that they need to go lower than the rs-35 rated 81 Hz. Any other comments on the rf-3IIs? I might get the rf-5's but since I've set up a 2-channel forte system for music, that aspect isn't as important as it was. Unless there's a significant difference (and specwise there is not) between the 3's and 5's, I'll probably get the 3's. The 3's are a lot cheaper for seemingly little difference in sound. The vinyl finish doesn't thrill me but the surrounds and center are too so it's not like the whole setup wouldn't be inconsistent. BTW, anyone know why the new speakers' sensitivity is rated in volts/meter instead of the old watts/meter? -David

I set up my 2-channel system last night. I had tried to use a 5.1 system for music with klf-20's, a c-7, forte surrounds and an lf-10. It was okay but I decided to go with something less imposing and needed shielded speakers there. I was planning on selling everthing but I couldn't part with my beloved Fortes. I had a Yamaha c-60 and m-80 preamp and amp in storage and decided to pull them out, move the forte's upstairs and get a 2-channel system going. I also have a t-85 tuner and what was at the time a nice technics cd player - 18 bit woo-hoo! My old speaker wire was corroding but I went ahead and set everything up and it sounds pretty good. I need new wire and a new CD player. The technics skips sometimes and I believe new players should be better with regard to sound quality. I saw a 24 bit in best buy a few days ago. What is the difference these days between CD (DVD) players? I'm thinking about buying something like a Toshiba 2900. I've had good luck with Toshiba and in case I ever do use it for dvd, it has the zoom for making the widescreen format visible on a small tv. My main concern is 2-channel analog output. This is the highest priority. Do all new DVD players output the analog CD signal fairly equally? What are your opinions on this? I don't believe that paying $500 for a CD player is necessary but down at the low end $80 to $150 I think there are probably some corners cut. On the other hand the way electronics has become, maybe a D/A decoder chip is just a comodity and doesn't really vary from player to player. What are your opinions on this? -David

I set up my 2-channel system last night. I had tried to use a 5.1 system for music with klf-20's, a c-7, forte surrounds and an lf-10. It was okay but I decided to go with something less imposing and needed shielded speakers there. I was planning on selling everthing but I couldn't part with my beloved Fortes. I had a Yamaha c-60 and m-80 preamp and amp in storage and decided to pull them out, move the forte's upstairs and get a 2-channel system going. I also have a t-85 tuner and what was at the time a nice technics cd player - 18 bit woo-hoo! My old speaker wire was corroding but I went ahead and set everything up and it sounds pretty good. I need new wire and a new CD player. The technics skips sometimes and I believe new players should be better with regard to sound quality. I saw a 24 bit in best buy a few days ago. What is the difference these days between CD (DVD) players? I'm thinking about buying something like a Toshiba 2900. I've had good luck with Toshiba and in case I ever do use it for dvd, it has the zoom for making the widescreen format visible on a small tv. My main concern is 2-channel analog output. This is the highest priority. Do all new DVD players output the analog CD signal fairly equally? What are your opinions on this? I don't believe that paying $500 for a CD player is necessary but down at the low end $80 to $150 I think there are probably some corners cut. On the other hand the way electronics has become, maybe a D/A decoder chip is just a comodity and doesn't really vary from player to player. What are your opinions on this? -David

Let's not forget this album sounded awesome to begin with. Has anyone done a straight CD vs SACD comparison? Or even an album vs. sacd comparo? What was the difference if any?

Anybody seen hide or hair of the rf-35s yet? They were supposed to be out by now. -David