Raider
-
Posts
232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Raider
-
-
I think we're all capable of drawing our own conclusions. And deciding when to end an intelligent exchange of ideas.
Oh my,I sense someone is offended.Then by all means continue arguing.Maybe your conclusion and INTELLIGENT exchange of ideas will lead to a breaktrough product.
Offended? Hardly.
Given your capitalization of the adjective "intelligent" and the apparent tone of the associated comment, you may have misinterpreted my sentence regarding "intelligent exchange of ideas" to somehow be exclusive of your contributions to the thread. If so, you couldn't be more wrong. I have actually learned a lot from your comments, not only on this thread, but on several others as well. So I found it puzzlng, and amusing, for you to declare a premature end to the thread that I started. And I found it also interesting that you state your conclusions and understanding applied to your situation, as representative of the forum globally, as diverse as it is. In fact, I found the tone of post #800952 to be so divergent from the helpful and informative posts I have come to expect from you, that I wondered if a troll had counterfeited your identity.
I find the group dynamics of forums fascinating. Its interesting how language, divorced from vocal inflection, facial expression, and body language can so easily be misunderstood.
I have corresponded via PM with DrWho on several occasions regarding potential subwoofers, and he generally summarily shoots down most every idea with those pesky facts. I think he might tell you that I am infinitely more likely to laugh when my ideas are shot down, that to take offense at disagreement. For future reference to anyone reading, if you are ever offended by anything I say, that is definitey not my intent. I'm here to learn from you all, contribute if possible, and to have fun; not necessarily in that order. I reserve the inalienable right to be wrong - I think its in the constitution somewhere.
My normal modality in approaching a problem or opportunity is to identify the factors and principles at play, establish priorities in the context of those variables (which are often mutually exclusive), and then seek a solution that seems to be the best application of those priciples to the opportunity at hand.
Speaker design too is a case-study in tradeoffs, priorities, and compromise. And one of the best examples of diminishing returns that I know of.
The fundamental concepts and physics principles involved in speaker design do not change, and most all were identified, quantified, and developed in the '40's. What does change is the contextual application of these principles. Consider for instance the development and refinement of equalization and its impact on smoothing frequency response. Or the refinement of speaker suspensions to allow longer excursion. Or, as you note, the impact of ever-cheaper power. Or of the implications Moore's Law in the development of FEA, CAD, CAM and its exponential effect on every aspect of design, manufacture, measurement, logistics, etc. Or even economic considerations such as the dispensible income of the average buyer today, and their expectation of ever-greater sound quality and ever-lower prices. While the principles stay the same, the context to which they may be applied changes constantly.
I opened this thread out of genuine curiosity about its subject, and so that the various concepts, principles, and tradeoff's involved could be identified and openly discussed. It also gives a chance for different people to offer what solution they came to, given their own priorities and situation, and I enjoy hearing their reasoning.
I have found this thread to be very informative in this regard, and it has given me opportunity to consider options I had not previously looked at, after acquiring a better understanding the principles involved. For instance, I have considered both IB and arrays, as well as a horn in my adjacent attic space.
The open discussion has also given me a better understanding of perhaps why Klipsch engineers pursued the path they did with the RT12-d and RT10-d. These offer maximum displacement for a given motor strength, take advantage of corner loading, are relatively small for their output, and versatile, though perhaps somewhat expensive. So though they are a compromise in some ways, they do a very good job of adressing several common priorities for relatively small size, deep extension, high sound quality, and substantial power output.
I'm glad you have reached a conclusion that meets your needs and that you are comfortable with, even though it might be different from the majority of horn-lovers here. (BTW, I enjoy Dynaudio speakers in my car, driven by substantial power, emmensely. So I understand your argument, and for that context, for my situation, I chose a similar approach.)
With the number of hits and longevity of this thread (and also of " Bass horn ideas again. A possible build. Need criticism. " in Updates and Modifications, and " Danley Labs DTS-20 On The Way" in this section) I think there is sufficient interest in the subject to continue.
I had the priviledge of hearing Paul Klipsch speak about 30 years ago. Your stated conclusions in #800952 are remarkably similar to what I recall Mr. Klipsch saying were the prevailing arguments and resistance he met from others at the time, before he developed the Klipschorn.
So, yes, constructive discourse may indeed lead to a breakthrough, within a changing context.
I look forward to your continued contributions, should you choose.
Should we meet, maybe at a Klipsch Pilgrimmage, we can enjoy a conversation, inflection, expression, body language and
all. Hopefully less misunderstanding. First round's on me.
-
I think we're all capable of drawing our own conclusions.
And deciding when to end an intelligent exchange of ideas.
-
Wow Doc. That is one of the clearest, easiest-to-use tools I have seen for balancing the sub with mains. This should be on a sticky here somewhere for future reference.
-
I would think a Yamaha would pair well...
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1279&highlight=klipsch
I will know for sure before long.....
-
Receiver may be going into a protect mode. Usually because of a bad connection or short, or because impedance falls below a threshold level. Check your connections and give more detail as to how you have these hooked up.
-
Yes, I only want to change the compression driver. Ive talked to my dealer about getting spare 1.25" drivers, just waiting to hear what they cost.
Not too much response to my thread. I guess that means that either:
a - my upgrade idea is moronic and impossible to implement with any success,
or
b - its a tricky question which requires more technical knowledge of the two different drivers than most possess.
Thanks for the response so far guys.
Are the RF-82's supposed to perform ~100db, on music at 3.5 meters to listening position, or am I driving them too hard?
I would say that it would be mostly "b". Sure you can change out the driver itself and mount any driver that will fit in its place. But its a crap shoot as to how it might turn out.
It might not work well for a variety of reasons. For instance the efficiency of the replacement unit might be different, causing the bass/treble balance to be off. Also the impedance might be different as well.
But most important are the issues surrounding the crossover. Each crossover is specifically designed around the characteristics of the two drivers, their relationship to each other, within the context of the specific enclosure parameters. For instance, the slope of the crossover, expressed in db per octave, will vary from driver to driver and will be selected to work in harmony with both driver's natural physical rolloff characteristics. Slopes may also be selected to limit potential damage to the specific driver.
Further, sometimes notch filters may be employed in the crossover design to counteract any resonances in the driver (they all have them to some degree; all objects have a fundamental resonance) and/or in the driver/horn combination.
A replacement driver is not likely to be identical to the driver it replaces in any of these ways, and certainly not in all of them. Many manufacturers make very small changes in their drivers to change a given characteristic, and drivers are often built to spec under an OEM arrangement; Klipsch probably does with at least some of their drivers. Go to http://www.tymphany.com/ and check out how many different tweeters just one OEM manufacturer makes, and notice how different the characteristics may be even between drivers of apparently identical size and design.
Also search here on DeanG's mods to the RF7, He makes some very, very small changes in the crossover design, and selection of components, and it renders a very different sonic signature to the speaker. So making any change to the driver/crossover/enclosure balance in a design is potentially frought with potential problems.
Lastly, consider that pricing structures for speaker companies are based on manufacturing/distributor/dealer markups, necessary for all to stay in business, and the price of speakers is directly proportionate to the cost of the components. Given the price differential between say the 82 and 83, there is alot more than just the cost of the tweeters apparently involved. Since the cabinets are not substantially different (other than the veneer) in their basic construction, I think there may be substantial differences in the crossovers that may not be readily apparent.
Hope this helps you with your decision, FWIW.
-
Be sure to see Ram1500's comments above, since he owns both and I am sure has spent an extended time listening to them and comparing.
Take the road trip. It was definitely worth the time and effort for me. Be sure to listen for an extended time to material you are very familiar with. It'll be a revelation.
Yeah, I've found some very good folks here as well. Very open minded to new ideas. Very opinionated, but accepting of individual preferences. And very well informed. I.E. DrWho for sub advice and studio related info. "MAS is the man" says one post regarding his acoustic treatment prowess. And oldbuckster for Klipsch-in-your-face common sense pragmatism. And......
-
On my 7's if you biamp,the two10's are low and the horn high,2-way,I assume the 83's are the same.
I have the 83's. If I bi-amp, let's say 2 amplifiers of 175 watts per channel each, does this mean my 3 woofers will get 175 watts all together, and the tiny 1.25" tweeter will get 175 watts? Thanks.
Indeed. The top binding post goes to the tweeter, and the bottom to the mid/woofer drivers. That's why it's common to biamp with either a less powerful amp on top or a tube amp on top along with SS on the bottom.
Ditto what audiobliss said. I asked Klipsch tech support last week if the RF towers are two way, and they are. The two (or three) bass drivers are all fed the same information, and fed by the bottom biamp terminal.
-
Hey Raider, where you at?
I know Raider has been spending many weeks researching all of the Klipsch options out there and I think he prefers the 82's over the 83's, but don't let me speak for someone else...
I personally think the 82/62 are a better deal and more conceptually sound than the 83/63. Any gains with the bass response would be nullified by the implementation of proper subwoofage...unless you're a strict 2-channel purist kind of listener.
And that's not to say that any speaker is a poor performer. I just see it hard to justify more than double the price for the 83 over the 82. Maybe that's why your dealer only stocks the top dawg [
]Hey JetJockey.
DrWho is right, I've been agonizing over this decision for some time now. The truth is....I don't know yet. I have narrowed the search to RF62, RF82, RF63 and RF83 lol. The choice is complicated by the fact that I have yet to be able to compare all four speakers in the same room, most of the time not even the same dealership for that matter. At first I was like you and inclined to just go for it, and get the RF83. One thing to consider is that all of these are rear ported and will sound best if they are placed out from the wall about 18", so when you add the speaker depth of up to 18" they will be out about 3 feet from your wall. This may or may not work for your room.
There is considerable difference in the voicing of the RFx3's vs. the RFx2's. The upper use a 1.2" tweeter driver, the lower use a 1" driver. And, of course, the larger the speakers, the lower the bass response, as a matter of physics.
DeanG in one of his posts regarding crossovers characterized the RF7's (the previous generation Reference flagship) as sounding as though the horn was out ahead of the rest of the music. To a degree that is what I hear in the RF83/63. The midrange and upper midrange is startlingly real and present, but to me seems to have more prominence than the midbass, bass, and highest treble. On the other hand, to me the RF82/62 retain the same definition and detail, but in what to me is a more balanced presentation where no part of the spectrum draws attention to itself. To me the 62/82 have a little better reproduction of the higher treble, 10k and up.
The other difference in voicing of the two, I think, lies in the size, and number of bass drivers used. A classic tradeoff in speaker design is that a larger driver by virtue of displacement can better reproduce bass, but its greater mass and inertia makes it less responsive to the faster midrange frequencies. A smaller driver by virtue of its smaller inertia can better respond to midrange frequencies, but its smaller cone size can't move as much air and produce bass as well. So I find that the RF62 and RF63 have very slightly better mid mass and lower midrange, while the RF82 and RF83 produce better and lower bass with slightly less defined lower midrange. So then 6-inch based speakers might be better for more critical music resolution, while the 8-inch based speakers have better-defined and lower bass. Or to clarify the strengths using an example of musical instruments, I would expect a baritone or bass sax to sound more natural on the eights; a tenor, alto or soprano to sound more natural on the sixes. But this is a very small difference. And not nearly as marked as the differerence in the voicing of the two different tweeters.
While I will be using a subwoofer to bring out the lowest octave, I find all of the towers' bass response down through about 40hz to be very natural sounding, as opposed to a bookshelf/sub combination. While the bookshelf/sub can be really good, I find the tower's bass response to be more natural and seamless. And the larger the enclosure, the better it sounds.
The RF63 and RF83's horns present a forward, and almost ethereal and holographic soundstage. And the RF83 could easily be enjoyed 2 channel sans sub for critical music listening. I think those who enjoy the classic presentation of the Heritage line would more likely prefer these.
The RF62 and RF82 to me have a more balanced presentation, and yet wonderful dynamics and detail. For the listener that is coming from more conventional speakers, these might have more appeal.
All that's a matter of taste. Before budget. The reality is that you can nearly buy all your surrounds and maybe a sub for the price difference between the RFx2's and the RFx3's. While I like the sound of both alternatives, I have yet to be able to say that one is better than the other - just different- and I have yet to build any compelling case for the RFx3 upgrade. Yet.
I got to hear an RF82 based system (with RC62, RS64, and RT12-d) at length, playing my favorite CD's for over an hour. I heard detail that I have never heard before, and I've played these on some very, very good systems. I can see why some refer to this speaker as the sweet spot in the line. I came away from this audition with NO question in my mind that I would own Klipsch speakers in my home next. Period. I stopped looking at other alternatives.
But I really need to audition the RF63/83 in a similar fashion to finalize my choice from among the line. But hey, I'm closing in. I have my choice down to these: RF83/RC64/RS62 or RF82/RC62/RS62 or possibly a timbre matched RF62/RC62/RS62 all around.
Just my impressions, FWIW, YMMV. And I have the inalienable right to be wrong; its somewhere in the Constitution I'm sure. And to think my wife thinks I'm too analytical...
-
Leave now while you still have a chance. No kidding. If you stay you'll find yourself spending ever larger portions of your income on this stuff, learning, and having fun while you're doing it. And we can't have that now, can we?
-
I found this product to be of particular interest...
http://www.owenscorning.com/quietzone/products/products3.asp
as it would allow installation of panels with very high SAF, since it is virtually invisible, and can cover the entire ceiling....
comments?
-
I spoke to Klipsch Tech Support last week, and was told that the floorstanders are two way, and that only the RC64 is a tapered array or 2.5 way. The drivers are the same, being fed the same bandwidth signal.Hi,
Someone told me that the RF-XX are 3-way speakers. Is it true? I recall that once upon a time the floorstanders were spec'ed as 2-1/2 way speakers. Currently all RF-xx are spec'ed like 2-way with xover at ~2000 Hz. I suspect that they are 2-1/2 way - how can the RF-52 play down to 34 Hz @ -3db if the lower LF driver is the same as the upper LF driver? If the lower LF driver was designed differently, then the conclusion would be that RF series would be 2-1/2 way. But 2-way sounds better for marketing purpose since the term is easier to understand.
Any thoughts from owners?
Thanks.
The specs listed here in the website show that the RC-52 and the RC-62 are also tapered array.
So it does. He may have said centers and I heard RC64
-
Not an owner but curious about 2 1/2 way speakers?.....What are you talking about? Wouldn't one crossover make it 2 way ? Never saw the term 2 1/2 way before........
In a speaker that has one tweeter and two mid/bass drivers, whether configured in a MMT or MTM arrangement, a two way crossover is normally used. However, since the two midbass drivers are producing the same midrange information, there can be some phase issues as a function of the driver spacing and the wavelengths being produced (such as what is referred to as comb filtering, where the combined response resembles a comb). Some crossover designers however will limit the bandwidth of one of the midbass drivers to only the lower frequencies. The information overlaps in the bass region allowing both cone's displacement contribute to the bass output, but only one driver will reproduce the midrange frequencies within the spectrum within which the previously mentioned phase anomalies would occur. So the goal is to have only one of the two midbass drivers produce the midrange for more precise imaging.
The down side of this approach is first of all cost, as such networks are considerably more complex. Another downside is that if the crossover isn't carefully designed, it can introduce more phase issues and other propblems than it solves.
Some assert that the human ear is much less perceptive of these issues in the vertical plane than the horizontal plane; probably true given the horizontal spacing and placement of the ears. There ear uses differerence in phase(to a lesser degree time delay) from one ear to the other , due to pathlength differences, when evaluating sound from the same source to determine its position. Since most sounds originate within the same horizontal plane as the ears are in, with sources more often located around than above, the ear brain trains to be very adept at determining location and distance from audio cues.
This phenomenon is probably why Klipsch designers chose to use such a crossover in the horizontally oriented centers, but not in the vertically oriented floor standers, I would think. That, and cost benefit analysis.
-
Hi,
Someone told me that the RF-XX are 3-way speakers. Is it true? I recall that once upon a time the floorstanders were spec'ed as 2-1/2 way speakers. Currently all RF-xx are spec'ed like 2-way with xover at ~2000 Hz. I suspect that they are 2-1/2 way - how can the RF-52 play down to 34 Hz @ -3db if the lower LF driver is the same as the upper LF driver? If the lower LF driver was designed differently, then the conclusion would be that RF series would be 2-1/2 way. But 2-way sounds better for marketing purpose since the term is easier to understand.
Any thoughts from owners?
Thanks.
I spoke to Klipsch Tech Support last week, and was told that the floorstanders are two way, and that only the RC64 is a tapered array or 2.5 way. The drivers are the same, being fed the same bandwidth signal.
-
The speaker which I modded with BH5 was small, only about .15 cubic feet. The BH5 apparently took up about 25 perecent of the internal volume. However the material is based on an open cell foam, so there is a negligible effect on internal volume (much like polyfill) and I found that it did not change the port tuning even in such a small speaker. It did remove some noticable resonances as compared A/B to an un modded speaker. The product is unique in that it helps damp both panel resonances, and standing waves.
I notice that even with two window pane braces, there are still areas not braced that are as long or longer than some bookshelf speakers. Some better quality bookshelf speakers of this size will often have a window pane brace, sometimes more, or may have a longitudinal braces parallel to the front and rear sides. So there may be potential for improvement in the Klipsch towers. However, I am confident though that FEA was likely used by Klipsch engineers to determine the size and spacing of the braces they used, and that this is probably near optimal without making the enclosures too heavy or large. So BH5 may or may not be beneficial for dealing with panel resonance in this case. I would think that a greater potential for improvement might be in dealing with standing waves within the enclosure. With as large a cone area as the towers have, there may well be and adverse effect by energy reflected back through the cones. This can muddy the midrange in much the same way as lack of acoustic treatment can muddle imaging and soundstage within a room.
As with room treatment though, enclosure treatments generally are best when addressing specific problem areas that have been identified. So unless you can identify a specific problem in the sound of your speakers, it will be less likely that there will be a positive cost/benefit outcome. If you like what you hear, money might be better spent on other things, like music. :0)
-
Were you deliberately trying to address a particular issue with the RF7's in your crossover mod, or did the improvement in sound character result from the changeout to a better grade of capacitors?
Both. With music playback the top sounds like it's running away from the bottom. The effect is acceptable for HT where subs are usually employed, but sitting alone the speaker sounds a bit unbalanced. The bass is lean and the midrange is somewhat overshadowed by some peaks in the horn's response. FR plots from the Sound & Vision test report support what a lot of us hear out of the RF-7. The mod isn't exactly radical -- a small value adjustment to the resistor in the notch circuit for the horn (about 1/4 ohm).
What type/brand of caps and coils are used in the Reference, and what do you use to replace them with?
Steel laminate for the low pass section and air cores in the tweeter section. I don't know the brand -- standard fare, which is perfectly fine. The caps in Reference are metallized polypropylene. The series caps are epoxy dipped and have a construction similar to an Orange Drop. These are pulled and replaced with Kimbers, the cap in the notch circuit is replaced with a Janzten, and the low pass cap gets replaced with a Solen. Resistors on the HF board are pulled and replaced with Mills.
Dean:
Interesting. Your description of the RF7 is basically my impression of the RF83's. I haven't heard the RF7's though.
Thanks for the information on your mods. Just curious, how did you arrive at the various caps you use and their placement in the circuit? Experience? Have you done any crossovers for the newer generation Reference line? Based on what you have done, do you think all Reference speakers would benefit from such mods?
Thanks
-
Since you've thrown it out there, I think you're spot on. I think the Synergy line is definitely the sleeper of the line. For some it will be an end point they will be very happy with, for others it will be the beginning of a path. It will definitely be a line i will recommend to friends...
-
Just wondering how it sound and how the ARC(adaptive room correction) works. Did anybody purchase one yet? I don't have an open corner to use. So I would have to put it on a wall. I have chance to buy a demo RSW-15 at a good price. I also considering the SVS PB-plus/2.
I heard one at length yesterday. It was part of a system of RF82 fronts, Rc62 center, RS62 rears. It was placed in a corner, and the dealer had used the ARC to tune it to the room. I played a wide variety of music that I am very familiar with.
In short, the sub seamlessly blended with the system, and it was impossible to tell where the RF82's left off and the sub began. The sub did not draw attention to itself; instead you just heard the music. Bass had a transparent quality to it, and you could hear ambience in the bass region. Delineation between bass instruments in complex passages was excellent. Response was smooth and solid down to the lowest notes of any material I played. The sub disappeared into the music. It was both powerful, and articulate at any volume I played. In summary, it did everything I expect of a sub, exceptionally well.
-
I read in some thread before that the RF-7s were lacking bracing and dampening material. I looked in mine and the egg foam stuff is just stuck in there. I rap on the side of the cabinet and can hear a definate resonance as there is no bracing inside.
I came across this stuff..... Blackhole 5 visco-elastic foam and mineral.... well, check it out http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:2R7en44425UJ:speakercity.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc%3FScreen%3DCTGY%26Store_Code%3DSC%26Category_Code%3Ddamping+Blackhole+pad&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3. Whaddya think?
I have used Black Hole 5 to for damping a cast aluminum cabinet used in a pair of Linaeum LX5 speakers from Radio Shack which were very resonant. After treating the surfaces with BH5, the enclosure was absolutely dead, as though the cabinet was made of a solid piece. Black Hole 5 is self adhesive and easy to use. I think the combination of the self adhesive barrier layer, in combination with the constrained layer barrier septum is particularly effective. Black Hoie 5 addresses a broader frequency spectrum than most competitive products, and will also provide damping for mid and high frequencies as well. With the multiple drivers used in the Reference series towers, standing waves near the wavelength of the cabinet dimensions will be damped and less likely to interfere with the primary signal produced by the bass drivers.
Another inherent advantage of BH5 is that it is based on an open-cell foam, so there is a negligible impact on the internal air volume that is critical in the proper tuning of these cabinets. Make sure however that your installation of the product is kept clear of the ports, as not to occlude air flow. See this link for a detailed description of Black Hole 5: http://www.gr-research.com/components/blackhole_5.htm .
A similar but slightly less costly (and effective) product is available from Parts Express: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=260-535 . But as far as I am concerned its in-for-a-dime in-for-a-dollar, and I think the BH5 product would be worth the price differential. If you are going to go to the trouble of upgrading the damping of your speakers, IMHO this is definitely the product to use.
Another effective product that is commonly used in car audio to dampen resonant panels, and by diy sub builders is this product from Cascade Audio: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=268-256 . This might be used to dampen any resonance that might exist in the composite plastic front face, or in the horn itself. I notice that literature on the current Reference line makes a point of talking about increased ribbing, so this suggests to me resonance in some models past might have been a problem. The VB-1x is also used to dampen the inside of subwoofer enclosures. Cascade notes that MDF, which most sub enclosures are made of, is actually slightly porous. Under the pressure that some subs can exert in a sealed application, there can be as much as 3 db of loss (according to Cascade measurements). VB-1x dampens the panel, but also seals the MDF. By the way, Cascade makes some excellent acoustic control products for use in HT applications.
The reality of manufacturing costs dictates that cost-benefit ratios must be carefully examined, and often premium parts in crossovers, and materials such as these will not be used. The typical buyer will not be able to discern the difference, or are simply not willing to pay a premium for a small difference. Especially if the product is labor intensive (such as the VB1) or if a material (such as BH5) is marginally more effective than a more commonly available-and much less expensive-product.
Frankly, I think it is a tribute to Klipsch that their product designers elected to use the acoustic foam that is in the Reference line, instead of the far cheaper and more prevalent polyfill. But I betcha somebody had to fight for it.
So this will boil down to your own cost benefit analysis. Will the benefits of these products be discernable enough, and worth the extra cost to you. I would suggest that someone who is willing to pay for a DeanG modded crossover would be able to appreciate the difference, and it would be worth the cost. But most folks would get more enjoyment for the dollar by investing in media instead.
Most folks wouldn't notice the difference. But then most folks don't listen to Klipsch. And most folks don't hang out on this forum.
-
I ordered a pair of B-Stock RF-83. One speaker looks beautiful. The other one has this nice defect in the top left front of the cabinet. I figure I can easily make it look better. My thought was to use a little wood glue and a clamp to bring the split wood together. Then a little paint to touch up the area. Does anyone with wood-working or cabinet experience have any advice.
Thanks,
Mark
I once used black shoe dye and black shoe polish to touch up a similar problem on a pair of black NS10 Yamaha's. If you can dye the wood itself, that's most of the problem. also look in the MinWax section of Home Depot or Lowe's. They have some repair sticks and fixes, though I'm not sure whether offered in black. I would dye first, then glue if needed because few stains will penetrate or cover glue.
-
Not to be too low tech, but I have used black shoe dye and/or black shoe polish with some success to touch up some Black Yamaha NS10's with good success. Might try it on a bottom panel first to test for results. If it doesn't work you could easily remove it with mineral spirits.
-
Most of you know that I work at Best Buy. I have snooped around online enough to see a general respect for klipsch reference series. I have also read 2 things about the Synergy series. Either, it seems, 90% of the time people either love or hate them. I notice all the people that love them own them and most of the people that hate them have only listened to them in Best Buy. When I listen to any of them in Best Buy they have a major lack of mids, very harsh highs and the sub is always turned up too loud. They sound bad. When i go home and listen I like them alot.
Yesterday i demoed a CD that i thinmk is recorded very well "The Everglow" by Mae. The second track sound awsome at home, the piano sounds like it is right infront of me. At Best Buy it sounded very bad, infact, i wish i wouldn't have shown the customer.
Basically, I think the Synergy lne is a good line of speakers and most of the people that really don't like them have only listened to them in the store and I would challenge some of
"those" poeple to listen to them when they are properly setup. They aren't perfect, and i would rather reference in the same price, but they by no means are bad speakers in and of themselves. Anyway, that was my little rant.
agree, disagree?
I don't see that any defense is needed. The Best Buy near me actually has a guy who knows what he is doing that has set up a Synergy HT system. I have listened to this system on several occasions, and I come away more impressed each time. When compared to peer products there (JBL,Yamaha,Bose) to me there is no comparison at their price point wthin the context within which they are intended. I would have no trouble recommending them to a friend, especially if they could be packaged with a hi def TV. The only achilles heel I see for the Synergy series is that the Reference series is often discounted where the Synergy systems seldom are (which is probably good for Klipsch price point protection) so you typically can upgrade to the Reference line for about a 10-20% differential. But I suspect the average Best Buy demographic customer, would not be inclined to talke the time to research and compare the differences in the two lines, and will buy more for convenience at BB. In doing so they will walk away with a remarkably good Synergy system which will perform, as you note, very well in their home, and with which they will likely be very happy. Synergy is by no means an entry level speaker line; just for Klipsch products. I think that part of the reason for the API aquisition is for the corporation to be able to offer entry lines without diluting the Klipsch product line.
JMHO,FWIW.
-
DeanG: some questions, if you don't mind...
Were you deliberately trying to address a particular issue with the RF7's in your crossover mod, or did the improvement in sound character result from the changeout to a better grade of capacitors?
What type/brand of caps and coils are used in the Reference, and what do you use to replace them with?
I find that this is one area where cost ccuts are often made because the results are subtle, can't be seen, and its difficult to market the benefits of upgraded components. Sound damping for the cabinets is the other area often scrimped on. Does anyone who has done surgery on Reference speakers know what Klipsch uses?
Thanks
-
There are a lot radio stations in the not so distant past that would have liked to have 2400 song selections
.
]
Gunna get this THEEAR???
in Home Theater
Posted
Perhaps the key word is retired, vs. DrWho who is in and around the rapidly changing current technology.
In all likelihood, your engineer friend who is retired spent the majority of his career engineering for a vinyl medium, and for his experience this was probably true.
When I was in college in the early-mid seventies I had an internship and had the opportunity to have access to many of the studios in the Nashville area.
One evening we went by the company that cut the wax masters used to make the dies that records were pressed with. I was really into all things audio at the time, and spent alot of time comparing equipment with frequency response and distortion specs. So imagine my surprise when I looked above the machine that actually cut the master and saw that an equalizer was being used on the input signal which sharply rolled off the response below 40-50 hz and above 13-15k.
I asked the engineer about this and he seemed a little amused, but went on to explain that the low end was rolled off because if you didn't it limited the amount of material you could squeeze on each side. The capability to cut lower was there, but a value decision was generally made, unless specifically requested by his client to do otherwise, to sacrifice low end response for more program content. The lower the bass, the wider the needle path had to be to reproduce it since it was an analog signal. So music content with 20 hz response would cut playing time on that side by about 50% vs. content with only 40 hz response, for example( the void between grooves remained about the same).
He also noted that very few audio systems used were capable of solid response in the lowest octave so there were few people out of the total audience that would be able to appreciate the effort. Further, there were few instruments capable of producing a signal that low at the time. (This was about when Emerson, Lake, and Palmer achieved notoriety by releasing the album with "Lucky Man" which reportedly ended with a synthesized 20 hz signal, something pretty rare at the time. This cut was commonly used by HiFi shops to demonstrate their leading edge equipment.)
He went on to tell me that he rolled off the high end because his clients generally felt that response above that point added more noise than content, and that there was less hiss when configured this way. This approach is also helped minimize the tape hiss which could never be completely eliminated from the master tape.
I believe this company did a majority of the mastering for all the major labels in Nashville, and they cut wax masters for many albums for those labels besides projects originating in Nashville. On occasion, they would produce wax masters with wider bandwidth if the client requested it. But most albums were not.
Now the digital medium, that's a whole 'nother animal.