Zen Traveler

Heritage Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zen Traveler last won the day on December 29 2013

Zen Traveler had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

436 Excellent

About Zen Traveler

  • Rank
    Klipsch Forum Lifer
  1. I agree and instead would ask what would you be using it for and with what components--For Blu-ray I can't see spending a lot of money but if one were wanting to play SACDs, there are some decent priced (($100) players and if you want to play DVD-A along with it that player can be had for $200. If you need multichannel/RCA capability it will cost you more, but with HDMI technology for most that is a non-issue unless they have older formats and players.
  2. For the record Sony has several lower priced players that play SACD (it was their format) but folks run into problems finding players that play DVD-Audio. The cheapest Bluray player I've seen that plays both is the Sony UHP-H1 and it has just been discounted to under $200. I've had mine for about 10 months and like it a lot and play all of these on a nightly basis...In fact, I think I will crank it up now and enjoy a nice Belhaven listening to some tunes!
  3. Honestly don't most Blu ray players play that format the same? I realize that 4K players playing that material will be cleaner but on standard Blue ray there should be no issues.
  4. Hey, I heard those systems in the DFW area. Hope things are going well and hadn't heard that you moved to Austin.
  5. Fwiw, here is a thread I started on the subject:
  6. I listen to a lot of DVD-Audio and SACDs along with Blu-ray concerts and use the Sony UHP-H1 and it works great if you are using HDMI...I also saw that it recently went on sale for under $200.
  7. If you don't know the secret handshake and password then you're obviously not in it. Nothing more attention getting than the title of this thread and must have missed the transgression....That said, those of us that have been here awhile don't fit into any one "clique," but understand some posters get more enthusiastic condemning one person's opinion. Wait.....If this all happened in the 2 Channel Forum I completely understand where you are coming from because those guys are NUTS! {Note: No smiley face as not to offend.} Seriously Karsoncookie, most of us here have threatened to leave because of someone else's (supposed or otherwise) idiotic comments and if you actually have gained anything in the past you can do so again....One of the things I didn't realize I would benefit from as much as I respect now is the Ignore Button. There are those that may want to push your buttons and I only use that feature for folks that try to get under my skin and don't add to the conversation....Otoh, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because sometimes we learn the most from those with whom we disagree. Anyway, my 2 cents.
  8. Thanks for responding, but I wasn't trying to stir up trouble--legitimately curious. That said, I can also understand not appreciating multichannel music as much having completely tonally different speakers as surrounds (especially with K-horns as mains). I have heard this as well. Otoh, it was something I became accustomed to going from concert videos which I didn't like crowd noises in the surrounds as much as well placed vocals and instruments meandering seamlessly through my system. I started off with classic Rock albums that were re-mastered in 5.1 and then on to Steely Dan/Donald Fagen which I wasn't privy too as a kid and then came full circle finding Talking Heads were made for this format! We started out watching movies, then concerts and now I primarily listen to DVD-As/SACDs with a few concerts mixed in.
  9. Did you also use an SPL meter to see what volume you were comparing? Hmm. I listen to mostly multichannel music disks and have RB-75s on the sides and rear to match my RF-7/RC-7 front soundstage and I'm never going back to 2 channel. That said, if you surrounds aren't as 'matched' to your front K-horns I could see where that could have diminishing results.
  10. I am curious--Were you using the RX-V1800 with RF-7s up front? The reason I ask is because I've developed a hypothesis after my research that it isn't necessarily the Watts per Channel, but the ability of lower end AVRs to cover the impedance dips of the RF-7s in a multichannel configuration. Without getting into the weeds, I noticed the same thing you described when I was happy with my Yammi RX-V 800 in a smaller room driving a 5.1 system and then moved the AVR to a larger room and it kept shutting down at louder volume... ...I then got a Denon AVR-4802R that was THX ultra II rated which advertised it was able to drive (ALL) speakers that dipped down to 3.2 Ohms in a 3,000 sq ft room, which was a major THX Ultra II spec. That was when I found not all AVRs were created equal and that the upper end units had beefier power supplies. I was disheartened when lightening struck and bricked the AVR-4802R and then received a AVR-4806 which also was THX Ultra II rated and loved both of those units....I kept an eye on the AVR-4311ci and was concerned it may not be able to drive my system efficiently but found it also was rated to drive 4 Ohm speakers all of the way around (I also have RB-75s on the side and rear and haven't seen their impedance curve but felt it's "8 Ohm compatible spec could be suspect because of that last word) Fwiw, I have been ecstatic with it and for the last 3 years, as before listen to material quite loud (80+ dB) on pretty much a nightly basis. Btw, here is the link to the Yamaha RX-V1800: http://download.yamaha.com/api/asset/file/?language=en&site=usa.yamaha.com&asset_id=35512 and on page 117 seems to confirm that using speakers that may be closer to 4 Ohm shouldn't be used or at least implied that by not mentioning it. I have also seen other manuals actually express not to use 4 Ohm speakers and those that can seem to use that as a selling point and are more expensive than their counterparts.
  11. I explained this above but if they did that then it would be harder to sell new speakers if the old ones had easily exchangeable parts and yes the grills are different on the two versions of RF-7s. If you follow this (along with many) company's stock you will see everyone is trying to cut costs to make a profit and as was mentioned it isn't a trivial issue carrying replacement parts in small numbers, when in fact volume drives down the original costs. Fwiw, those are the reasons that most companies don't do as you suggest and if they did would be competing against after-market companies that actually do advertise replacement parts at a discount....IOW, if all generations of the RF-7 had similar parts then it would be in a discounters interest to provide those parts and companies have found they can't compete in that environment and sell new products. Honestly I don't know what an RS-52 crossover would cost but imagine not much more than purchasing the actual speaker used...Otoh, there is a lot of discussion on 'resellers' selling Heritage crossovers and if you follow some of those threads you will see what the problem is for Klipsch.
  12. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/167121-when-did-klipsch-start-to-fudge-their-stats-and-what-was-the-reason/
  13. Yeah, this. Following some of the technical threads over at AVS it seems that the topology/circuitry has improved in more recent upperend AVRs which allows them to drive multichannel configs more efficiently without having to have old school, "beefy' amplification. It also seems to have driven down the costs.
  14. Fwiw, I think it's because the RF-83/RC-64 were a warmer front soundstage than the traditional Klipsch sound....When they first came out I auditioned them at 2 locations and didn't feel they were as crisp and clear as my RF-7/RC-7 combo. {Note: still a nice sounding and well made speaker} Remember, there were two generations of RF-82s and my guess the cost to build them wasn't much different than the RF-62s because they look to have similar components (outside of the larger LF drivers and cabinets) and mass produced/ordered from China. Not saying that is a bad thing but under those circumstances they were probably easier to sell and discount than the RF-62s (If what you report is a fact). Also unsuspecting (or frugal) folks saw the RF-82s being almost as good as the RF-7s/RF-83s for half the price. Otoh, the RF-83s/63s and RC-64 were made in Hope, Arkansas and volume could be adjusted to how many were being ordered....
  15. As Derrick said above, if you set your speakers to small and apply a crossover it will take considerable strain off the AVR and run your HT more efficiently. The next thing to consider is how loud you listen to material...If you start to hear distortion then you may need to consider external amplification. Fwiw, it's not about adding more speakers "to get down to 55W per channel," it actually about how much power is required to drive your system and realize that you aren't going to have all channels being driven to the max all (read, none) of the time.