Raider

Did you happen to compare the RB61 to the RB81? Since I will be using a sub, I am primarily interested in the midrange, imaging, staging etc. What are your thoughts. Thanks

Unless you are really huge on DVD-A or Muylti Channel SACD large speakers for the rear are a cost better placed in source or amplification. RB-61 or smaller would be fine for rear unless your room is very large. My curent rear are KSB 1.1 or something like that. My HT was not lacking when I used the RB-5 for my mains before the Chorus IIs ended up there. Thanks for your input. My thinking is that , like it or not, more and more surround material, both music and movies, is being mixed in the rear channels, and that by using towers, the transition will be more seamless. My room precludes the effective use of RS models, and in my particular stuation directivity I think will work better.. A bookshelf on a stand and a floorstander take up the same floor footprint, with the bass more natural and extended with the floorstand model. Also, if I find the floorstander to be overkill for the rear channels, I will switch them with the bookshelf units in the office. My room is 16.5 by 16.5 but one wall is open to a stairwell and hallway. Thanks for your response.

David: Did you audition the RF62's against the RF82's and if so what was your impression? Where did you get your 62's and how much, if you can post that here? How have the RF62's worked out in your application? What is your assessment of strengths/weaknesses? Thanks for the input on the RB81/61. I had heard the RB81's and was considering the RB61 thinking they would be similar. Maybe the 81's would be better for me, and they are nominally larger, and only slightly more in price, and I probably won't feel later like I compromised .

Okay, so inquiring minds want to know.....what are you going to do with 12 amps and 3kw of power? Since you didn't mention drivers, I assume you didn't get the servo version. Did you look at the Linkwitz Transform add-on board? (Though I think it may be driver specific.) Brian has a little differnt way of doing business, but he is well regarded by everyone I have read about that has dealt with him. I was particularly impressed by the up-front manner in which he handled a QC issue with the initial run of his second generation 12" servo driver. He quickly identified the problem working in concert with the supplier TC Sounds, and he replaced all affected units or offered a refund if the customer preferred. He also provides excellent and patient customer support.

DrWho: How well do you think the W7 would do in a sealed box, taking into consideration typical room gain?

After evaluating several alternatives, I am considering building a set of these subs. I wondered if anyone here had any experience with these, especially used with Klipsch. Thanks

Thanks for the feedback on the RB81's.

I am putting together a 5.1 HT system for my bonus room and also a 2.1 system for my office. For the Bonus room I plan to get an RC62 center. For mains and surrounds I would like to do four RF82's, four RF62's, or a pair of each. (However, if I ran across a great deal on RF63's or RF83's with an RC64 center that might work too ) For the office I would like to do RB61's or RB81's. My wife prefers the Black finish, a concession I am glad to make for her. If you have any of these speakers for sale and are within pickup distance of Nashville TN, let me know. Sales by individuals, or from dealers welcome. Post or PM as you prefer. Thanks

My HT room is 16.5 by 16.5, but one wall is 2/3 open into a two story stairwell and hallway. The ceiling is a cathedral type that is 10 in the center and 8 at the side wall. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I am trying to decide between the RF82 and RF62. I like aspect of both speakers, but with a slight preference for the RF82 because of its extended bass response. I have decided to use four floor-standers with an RC62 center, to allow maximum placement flexibility in the room and since RS surrounds would be difficult to implement with the open wall on side. My only real concern is that four of the RF82s might overpower the room as opposed to four RF62s. (Of course the other option is a pair of each). If anyone has experience with these units in a similar size room, I would appreciate your input as to which direction to take. Thanks

TheEAR: Interesting that your accessment is very parallel to my experience yesterday. Here are some edits of what I wrote to Klipschster1 before you wrote the above: In comparing the RT12d and F113: Two primary differences were noted. First was the tonality of the bass (we listened to the subs alone and with mains). The RT has a sonic signature that has a little less resolution than the JL, not unlike comparing 720p to 1080p in video, compared to the JL's transparent clarity. As a result the JL's integration was seamless, where I could occasionally localize the position of the RT. The RT had relatively softer attack/delay times that I have come to associate with a passive design, where the JL's sealed signature was tight and controlled, regardless of how low or how loud. It has a servo type of controlled sound, but with a phat musical character. Also the JL had rock solid response down to the limits of hearing, while maintaining the tightness and control. The sub bass took on a sort of holographic or ethereal, but visceral presence like I haven't experienced before. The sonic character I found to be not unlike the Martin Logan subs, but the JL has substantially more output. I can only imagine what the Gotham would sound/feel like. However these differences have to be framed in the context of the fact that the JL costs half again what the RT does. I also heard the F112 which is at a more similar price point, slightly higher than the RT by about 10%. The differences in sonic signature between the RT and the F112 were essentially similar in nature as with the F113, but a much less marked difference. It'll be interesting to see what TC brings. I expect it to have extereme output, but it remains to be seen if it has the finesse and musicality of the RT or JL......

You must not be married, or have kids.

Klipschster1 check your PM.

I had an opportunity to compare the RT12d and the Fathom F113 and F112 yesterday, as well as hearing the Martin Logan Abyss. I'll be interested in seeing your impressions of the new kids on the block.

The main feature I wanted is to be able to easily enable night mode. The references I read on the site as to what use of the RT with a learning remote would do, or how you go about it are pretty vague. Dealers don't seem to know much more.

Trey: Thanks for the repsonse. I think that web sites are often underestimated as a marketing tool. Many companies are finding them to be a very economical repository for non-proprietary information for access for a variety of reasons, and an excellent sales and marketing support tool. I just wanted to make known the kind of information that is valuable to me as I work through my Klipsch purchase experience, figuring that my experience is not dissimilar to that of many. I have found Klipsch to be a well kept secret in plain view, and I think any means that might bring the brand to a wider conciousness in the consumers mind and perception is worthwhile. It's such an extraordinary product, it would be a shame for it not to be enjoyed by anyone who might come to it from any direction. Thanks again for your response and consideration.

Welcome back!

d...r....u....m.....r.......o..............l.......................l.......................(whew)....................drumroll...........................................................

The RT12d has some nice features that can be changed at the control panel. The unit also has an IR input. Does this mean that a universal remote can be used with the units. If so, how is the remote programmed to enable these features. If it has this capability, then I really don't understand why the sub doesnt come with a remote. Even the $500 Velodynes have a remote.

drumroll...............................................................

I spoke to, I think, Steve in Tech support at Klipsch a few weeks ago. He recommended at least 18" as optimal. Since the speakers are about 18" deep, the front face of the speaker will bew three feet into your room. One of my dealers however told me that they are more forgiving than that.

The automotive drivers and home theatre drivers are different slightly, and each is purpose-built as detailed here: http://home.jlaudio.com/multimedia_pages.php?page_id=15# (click on Driver Technology) Also interesting excursion video of 2" then 4". BTW, I think JL's presentation of their product on the site is exemplary. I would like to see Klipsch provide a more direct connection with its engineering and R&D. Many who attended the Pilgrimmage came away with a greater appreciation for the engineering, design, and manufacturing that goes into the product. There is no reason why this opportunity cannot be afforded virtually to all customers in such a manner. Klipsch engineering, design, and development is world class in every way. I don't understand why it is kept in the "back room". Rather I think it would be an effective tool, along with continued emphasis on heritage, which I think Klipsch does very well, and which many speaker manufacturers these days lack. FWIW.

I did not intend to state, imply, assert, or even hint that Klipsch does, shoulda, coulda, woulda or oughta sell their individual drivers separately, in quantity, or as a kit to the DIY hobbyist, entrepreneur, fledgling speaker company, or audiophile lunatic. My references to DIY in paragraph 2 are to "drivers"; my references re: Klipsch are to "speakers" by which I mean the completed assembly. I.E. the final product, the whole enchilada, cabinet, drivers, crossover and all. Such as an RB51, or an RF63, or an RT12d. I thought I was clear, apparently I wasn't. My references to DIY were only for the purpose of recognizing that among their customer base, ScanSpeak, Vifa, Peerless, and Seas are respected for making available detailed data in an open and honest way for folks to use - in whatever way they see fit. This is perceived in the marketplace as a strength, and as having confidence in their product. Beyond that illustration , I did not intend for DIY to have anything to do with my proposal. No there aren't any standards for testing speakers. Unless a manufacturer takes the initiative to provide credible data on their own terms, the consumer is left to draw conclusions from whatever data is available, no matter how flawed it might or whatever agenda might have produced it. The example with PWK indicates this isn't a new problem. But today with the explosion of information which is often not verified or peer reviewed, the opportunity for MISinformation is unprecedented. So even though manufacturer provided data is seen on its face as self serving, at least the manufacturer has some control as to its credibility, especially when presented in an open and honest way. Discerning consumers give more credibility, I think to this kind of data, than to that whose source is unknown or uncertain. Notice in the Sound&Vision subwoofer thread that when JLAudio disagreed with S&V's accessment, they refuted it with their own data and testing, carefully detailing the method they used to arrive at the data. Thanks to Trey for responding! Please allow me to use your post as a framework to use to clarify my argument (as in respectful debate) as it touches on some key points. "What do you hope to learn from this data?" I don't think its just me. Increasingly the internet is used by more and more people to research major purchases, especially those of a technical nature. Conclusions will be drawn from whatever information is available, right or wrong, good or bad. I think a manufacturer is prudent to publish as much information as possible, to as wide a potential buyer demographic as possible. Klipsch should also be aware that an increasing percentage of their product line is being sold by custom installation companies that clearly have the ability to understand and interpret such data, and can put it to good use both in product selection and inplementation. Following are examples of how such data could be used of the top of my head, sparse as it may be up there.: 1) Frequency Response Graphs. These would be useful for comparing speakers to each other, as well as finding speakers whose response would complement each other. Judging from the number of "What subwoofer would go with my speakers" questions on this forum, I think most would find this useful in determining the speakers compatibilty with other speakers, with subwoofers, and to the room itself. Certainly better than the vague frequency reponse specifications in the literature. 2) Distortion graphs and measures. Klipsch speakers are often reputed to be "harsh". Distortion measurements might go a long way toward showing that this is usually a function of the source material rather than the speaker itself. Distortion figures can give at least a baseline for comparison as to how the speaker can be expected to perform. 3) Impedance graphs. Many amplifiers, both solid state and tube, are sensitive to certainimpedance ranges. I wonder how often speakers are not chosen just because impedance data is unknown. With the popularity of Klipsch among SET and tube amp owners, I would think this would be significant. 4) Polar response at octave intervals or across the spectrum. this data is particularly helpful in speaker positioning. Consider its potential value in the planning and placement of in-wall speakers which will not likely be moved once installed, for instance. It would also be helpful in making initial accessment of where sound control material may need to be located. 5) Waterfall plots. These plots can be a good indicator of the overall character of the sound of a speaker, and also an indicator of difficult areas that may need to be dealt with. Resonances in the plot might be exacerbated by placement or by room surfaces, and knowing this information miht help to better plan implementation. "A response curve in the anechoic chamber will look very little like a room response curve." Of course. But that is the intrinsic value of anechoic measurement; that speaker response can be demonstrated independent of the room response. If this data is not valuable, then why is anechoic data used in R&D? It would be valuable in knowing what to expect from the speaker itself independent of any room interaction, and would help in establishing a baseline for trouble shooting acoustic issues. "There are only about 1% of the end users that would know how to read and understand a response curve." A similar sentiment is expressed by other posts as well. Clearly the majority of purchases are probably made on an emotional or subjective basis. But consider this. Perhaps the number of techically savvy potential Klipsch buyers might be actually significantly higher. My perception is that many Klipsch buyers are better educated, and often more mature, and are certainly often more independent thinkers to consider an alternative not taken by most. The choice can be made to cater to the lowest common denominator and underestimate the typical buyer, which would result in a loss of potential buyers that are tech-savvy. Or you could err on the other side, and publish extensive data that may be ignored by most, but will reach or retain the tech-savvy. So maybe such an approach might not increase sales but a small percentage. I'm thinking the marketing department won't think any increase insignificant. "Many DIY'ers will see good looking curves for drivers and think that with any old crossover and any old box, they can "splice" these 'great' curves together to make a system 'for less money". Our Forum knows this to be wrong. Then the driver suppliers get blamed for poor results. Knowing the ingredients does not give one the recipe." Well said. And why I'm here now. DIY is a playground for those who like to learn by hands-on experimentation, or for those who enjoy woodworking, or both. I was very close to building some speakers myself, but due to limited time and as a sanity check I decided to see what commercial offerings could be purchased for the same amount. I detemined that for me personally, I couldn't begin to approach the manufacturing quality, engineering, and design expertise, nor the intrinsic value of Klipsch in my price range. Since I was misunderstood in my first post, I hope not to be misconstrued here. I have nothing but admiration for the Klipsch product, from engineering to design to marketing. But I do think that the value of publishing detailed specifications is certainly underestimated. Thanks for reading - if you're still awake.

The thread in the Subwoofer section regarding the Sound&Vsion testing of Klipsch speakers brings up an issue that I have often wondered about. I actually came to this forum from the DIY speaker building forums. When researching potential DIY designs it is easy and commonplace to have access to reliable, repeatable data regarding drivers. D-S-T (now Tymphany) and SEAS are noted for providing comprehensive data on their drivers, including accurate measurements. They are both noted for giving an accurate representation of their drivers, the good, the bad, and the ugly included. In doing so, they allow their drivers to be considered for potential application, and the designer is able to apply that data to the context of their potential use and predict with relative certainty their suitability. It should be noted that both companies are highly regarded, and their drivers are considered some of the best offered, often the standard bearers for the DIY folks but on a much larger scale for OEM applications. Given this excellence exhibited by these manufacturers in providing such data and adopting such an "open book" approach in providing objective data, I am puzzled as to why Klipsch, a company of arguably equal standing and reputation, and certainly heritage, doesn't make similar data available for its speakers. Such data, for those who understand it, would be invaluable for selection of speakers for their various uses. In the absence of such data -where the data and the methodology for arriving at that data is openly made known- buyers perception is these days formed from data of questionable credibillity. Tests by various media outlets may be commercially biased, intentionally or unintentionally. Such tests may also present the speaker used in a manner that is not necessarily commensurate with the products primary design goals. Even worse is the perception of products created by self-appointed experts on the internet. Some make opinions known based on purely anecdotal data or unsubstantiated opinion. With these dynamics at play, test data provided by a manufacturer, which on its face is recognized as being biased, can often have more credibilty than data from other sources with unknown agendas. Klipsch certainly had the facilities, expertise and ability to produce credible data on their products. So i personally would like to see Klipsch make available more comprehensive data on its speaker line, including: 1) Frequency response graphs 2) Distortion graphs and measures 3) Impedance graphs 4) Polar response at octave intervals or across the spectrum 5) Waterfall plots We here on this forum understand that Klipsch products are world class in excellence. I would like to see Klipsch provide data here on this site that would allow better selection and implementation of its products, and allow it to more accurately be perceived as a leader in this regard. Paul Klipsch certainly had no fear of objective comparison of his products and philosophy in the open marketplace. Publishing objective product data would be an homage to that tradition.

OneTooMany touches on what I took away from Nousaine's test, which was that the RT12D compares very favorably with the JL Fathom when tested in essentially the same environment. Nousaine has tested subs for many years in the car audio arena, and of course has taken a lot of heat in that highly competitive industry when a favorite sub didn't test to its following's expectations. So I imagine he is careful to test in a way that is defensible, and repeatable. There is a thread in the AV forum where Manville Smith of JL very respectfully (as is characteristic for him personally as well as the JL organization) indicates JL's surprise with his results. They indicate they would revisit their testing an make known their results and methodology, probably as indicated a few responses above. The problem to a degree is that subs are so interactive with their environment, even dependent on it. Couple this with the fact that there is no industry standard testing, and comparison is difficult. Reputable manufacturers make data available, as well as their methods, so that within that context you can hopefully interpolate how the sub will behave in your application. Less reputable manufacturers skew and present data that is questionable at best. I too trust Tom and am confident that he doesn't bring any deliberate bias to the table. Variations from other posted data is likely attributable to differences in environment, and in testing methodology.

How bout a Nissan mug or equivalent in stainless, anodized copper color to match the Reference drivers, with the Klipsch PWK pie logo on one side and the current logo on the other side.