chitown2477

New or used? New definitely. Used, may be as well given condition. I would skip the sub if you can save money and buy a better one someplace else.

Changed my order to the A3-300. Just seemed like the thing to do for just another $200. Original plan was to buy another A2-300 next year. Now just have to find more good resources and setting up the A3-300 the right way with my Klipsch RF-52 5.1 system. Should be a good time making it work. Thanks for the input.

You all may have seen in another post of mine that I have the Klipsch Sub-10. I have the eD A2-300 on order. I am curious if anyone has experience using two subs together but different sub models. If so, how have you set these up together. I figure since I have the Sub-10 I might as well use it. I just don't want it to cause me to lose an overall sound quality. Also here is sort of a stretch question - I have the A2-300 on order but just go a small bonus form work and can now likely afford $200 more to go to the A3-300. Is this really worth the extra cost? The difference is a slightly bigger box, more excursion, and 100 more watts.

Correction - In the message above I stated the A3-350. I meant the A3-250 Thanks for the reply. After looking at the A2-300 specs, I think I'm going that route. It is goes just as deep as the A3-250 and has more cubic space. Even with less wattage (200 vs 300), I think it will meet my needs for years to come (haha - yeah I know). Seriously, I think I am going to be good with it. After looking at some details specs, I actually think there is not a significant difference between the A2-300 and the A3-300 - for the money.

I am looking to upgrade my subwoofer from the Klipsch Sub-10 I currently have. Reason for upgrade is the Sub-10 seems to get muddy or unresponisve during some serious LFE scenes in movies. Also it seems to be a bit weak for music, i.e hip-hop/R&B. I can't afford more than $450 and that is a stretch. Considering the eD A2-300 ($415) or even the A3-350 ($450) as both would have a lower frequency range - down to 18hz vs. 28hz for the Sub-10. I don't need something really expensive ($500 or more - even it I have the money) that will likely by turned only half way up or otherwise drown out my Klipsch Reference 52 line HT. . Can anyone tell me if they feel the A2-300 or A3-350 give me more than an incremental increase in performance? I know there is some subjectivity here but on paper the A2-300 or A3-350 look better. I am leaning toward the A2-300 bigger it is bigger (hey its a guy thing!).

Hello all, I currently have the RF-52 system for my 5.1 setup except for my sub (fronts are RF-52, center is RC-52, RS-42 surrounds, and Sub 10). I just purchased the Pioneer Elite VSX-21TXH 7.1 receiver that is fantastic. I am looking to expand to a 7.1 system and would like help in selecting rear speakers. I am thinking about the RB-10s to keep the system all Klipsch. But it would be nice to save some cash as these speakers run about $270. Any suggestions for solid rears outside of the RB-10s that will go well with my current setup? Also, I have my surrounds immediately to the side of the seating position and about 5 1/2 feet high. The rears with be about 6 1/2 feet hight and behind the seating position by only 1 foot. This is due to my living room setup which opens up to a second room. Does this seem like it would be enough space in the rear to get good 7.1 sound? I have a thick curtain to divide the to cut down on light if I watch a movie during the day. Thanks in advance for you advice!

I have the RS-42's for surrounds on a 5.1 system and they soundgreat. My setup is similair to yours although yours is more wide open. The RS models a great for dispersing sound. Ideally they should be to the side of the listening position (the so called null-zone).They also are very forgiving for placement but if you place them exactly were you current surrounds are you will be fine. I think that RB's will be the best for rears in a 6.1 or 7.1 system. BTW - I would toe-in you fronts towards the center to create a better "sweet spot". You should also use teh pivot on teh RC-62 to angle it towards teh listening position. I did the same and I feel it makes a bitt difference, especially in an open room. I hope this helps. And nice house!

I have not found many stands that work well with center channel placement. However, I was able to build a stand that works well to hold my center channel above my TV. I constructed it out of 2'x6' stock and used brackets for extra stability especially on the top to prevent undue pressure on the TV. I also added felt on the base to protect the speaker. You may want to built a lip on the base in the front to prevent the speaker from sliding forward. Make sure to measure to fit your TV and it will work well and is VERY cheap to build. The stand height from top to bottom should be the same as the height of your TV from the floor to the top of the TV. The top base should be at the least the wide from front to back plus about 6-8 inches. The base on the floor should be at least 1/2 the width of the base to provide a good footing. Major assumptions: you want to mount the speaker above the TV and there is clearance underneath your existing TV stand to slide in the base of the support stand. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> My center channel speaker now looks like is floats above the TV and it is entirely supported by the stand. I painted it black to match my TV and TV stand. Because it is nearly unseen (behind the TV) it is very forgiving for flaws or imperfections. It can easily hold 100 pounds. See my crude drawing

Personally, I think you will have a great system. Don't worry about the RC-52 vs. the RC-62 as I don't think the 62's will overpower the 52's and the sound match will be fine. For the 40' run of speaker wire, make sure to use 14 gauge wire. If you have the Denon 2807, not the 2307, you have an excellent receiver. The 2307 is very good but he 2807 is even better.

I just purchase Klipsch speakers and ironically I was going to by EXACTLY what you detailed above. I would make the following recommendations:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Get the RF-52's instead of the RB-61's for your front left and right. It is about $150.00 more (MSRP) but much more in terms of output and will make a big difference. Plus the low-end frequencies will help you with you 10" sub. Your 10" sub may be fine, especially if it is by a reputable manufacturer. Keep it, play around with location, and go from there. I have an 8" DefTech sub that is amazing! The RS-42's are great speakers and VERY forgiving about placement. Either wall mounted or on stands you will be fine. I had mine as high as 7' off the ground and they were fine (I just lowered them). You can mount them about the fish tank as long as you use a solid mounting mechanism, e.g. anchors or directly into the stud. They only weigh about 10 pounds. This is more secure and most likely more aesthetically pleasing. I built the following speaker stands before with materials from Home Depot that were cut there for me for free: Use two 2"x4"x36" pieces for each stand as the riser. Use two 2"x7"x7" pieces as the upper and lower bases. Nail everything together, paint it what ever color you want, and you are done in about twe hours at a cost of about $30.00. Change the riser height at your discretion. However, the RS-42's are better at higher heights. OR go to Best Buy or Circuit and by stands for about $100.00 (get the ones on display for cheaper if you can). Either way it is pretty quick. The RC-52 is a good choice as well. Use the tilt mechanism on the speaker to angle it towards the listening position. You room size is fine even with the openings. I would worry more about sound reflections in the main listening area. I bought a few acoustic panels that I think really help. Make sure your speakers are focused on the mail listening area's "sweet spot". Make sure to adjust the speaker distance, size, ect through your receiver and you will get great sound from speakers that will last for 20 years. Again, get the RF-52's - for the cost difference and the fact you a buying a new system, it is well worth it. Hope this helps!

Companies do that all the time...hire someone with the exerience to better seed teh technology inhouse.

This weekend I will be replacing the speaker wires for my home theater system. The main reason is due to some being spliced as I ran out of speaker wire previously and some of the wire being lower gauge (12 gauge). Please let me know what you think of the following questions. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Does the speaker wire length have to be the same for each set of speakers? For example, should the speaker wire for the L/R fronts be about 10 each. I have heard this can influence evenness of sound which does not seem to make much sense given how fast the sound travels. The speaker wire runs will be about 30 feet for the L/R surrounds and 45 for the rear channel (they are mounted on the wall and I also run along the base of wall). I will use 14 gauge wire is this reasonable to provide clear sound but not create undue resistance? Since my L/R fronts are about 10 each, should I use a lower gauge wire or will 14 gauge make a huge difference? Any preferences for speaker wire? I really would like to use something cheaper than Monster but also fo good technical quality, e.g. something from Radio Shack or Acoustic Research. Thanks,

I have listened to HD via the XB360 and while the sound is good, I have to turn up the dail a bit more. I am curious if teh PS3 has the same issue.

The PS3 has HDMI 1.3 which means that it is already sending (decoding) out HD audio via HDMI only. Besides one or two HD and Blue-ray DVD players, it is one of the very few HDMI 1.3 consumer devices on the market right now. The receiver is not sending out true HD to your system, even if it has HDMI pass through. As damonrpayne wrote, hopefully there will be firmware updates to enable HDMI 1.1 and 1.2 receivers to pass through true HD audio. This will definitely make those of us with HDMI 1.1 and 1.2 receivers very happy as we will only have to get a DVD player that decodes HD audio to be sent to the receiver. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Even when HDMI 1.3 receivers come out, they will be expensive at first and it may be some time before there are even released.

Just curious as to why you think you cannot run wires? Looking at you picture it seem svery easy to do so with being seen much at all. The left surround next to teh doorway and the right surround opposite from it. That would give you a 5.1 system. Espcially if you use RS's for teh surrounds given their diffuse sound field.

I don't necessarily want it louder or the next room quieter. It seems as though it would be better to have a "closed" room as much as possible to get the best overall sound. Maybe I am not missing anything by having the open wall. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Here are my thoughts<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 1. I have had two Yamaha's and think they are great; I just bought the RX-V1600 to replace my HTR-5740. I demo'ed a similar Denon and simply liked the functionality of the Yamaha. Even though you only want 5.1 now, I suggest you get a 6.1 or even 7.1 receiver. My position is leave room for expansion if you want more speakers later. I also think you should get the best receiver you can afford and you can get a lot in $500-800 range. Don't forget about having enough inputs for the future, e.g. optical, component, and even HDMI. All attainable for about $800.00 2. I have RF-52's for fronts, RC-62 for center and RS-42's for rear with a DefTech sub. They sound great and I HIGHLY advise the reference line over synergy. And the F3 package does not include a sub. 3. If you get the RF-52 package with a solid middle-level receiver, you will be very happy for your room size. You are right that the center channel is important but dont get something that is to big in relation to your other speakers. 4. I advise getting a receiver with HDMI just because it gives you options for the future. Mostly likely you will need HDMI to pass 1080p through your receiver if you go that route. Also, if you ever has to components with HDMI you will need a splitter unless your TV has two HDMI inputs. So, buying a receiver with HDMI can save cost and make connections more efficient. The biggest thing about HMDI 1.3 is the ability to pass true HD sound through but that wont happen for several months and will be on higher priced receivers anyway. HDMI 1.1 and 1.2 are fairly common now. The biggest compatibility issue with 1.1 and 1.2 are components that are not truly HDMI certified to protect copyrights. I am not an expert but have done a lot of research on the topic. 5. I will use my current receiver for video switching because it will allow me to reduce some of my remotes. Some have said to all ways go directly to the source for video with no switching. Others from the forum may help you more on this item. 6. About the only not made in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />China is the sandwich I ate for lunch today. I am in the US, but why would you have to worry about it if you purchase in Canada? I am sure any trade cost are included in the price. 7. Shop for the best price, especially customer loyalty discounts. 8. I think you will be fine with speaker wire as long as the shielding and gauge is fine. Ditto for the subwoofer cable. Hope this helps.

Hello all, <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I have my HT setup in my 12'x14' living room which opens up to the dining room; the longer side of the room runs east to west. The ceiling is about 11 high, walls are plaster, and I have hardwood flooring (with a big, thick area rug). My HT system is setup as follows: · The HT is setup on the east wall that has a picture window with thick curtains to darken the room. · The south wall is solid with a bookshelf. · The north wall is solid except for an entry door located roughly in the middle. · The west wall has an archway that leads into the dinning room. The sitting position is along the west wall. I have a thick curtain extended across the west wall to provide a divider to keep some sound in and all darken the room substantially. · Four 2'x2' acoustic panels in the room; two on each north and south wall toward the rear of the room. My concern is that the west wall lets too much sound out of the room. The system sounds great but I think having a more solid west wall would allow more sound to stay in the room. Should this be a concern? If so, what can I do about it? Also, I have RS-42's that are placed at 6.5' off the ground and directly to left and right of the sitting position. Is this a good location for this type of speaker? Any feedback would be appreciated.

This debate seems to talk about what not to do as opposed to first stating what the ideal thing to do is the right speaker placement. Please explain what you think is the best or "ideal" placement. I would really like to leverage this feedback. For example, I have the center channel (RC-52) directly above my 50" DLP and I understand directly be low is OK and the literally behind the screen is optimal. For the front left and right, I have towers (RF-52's) that are about 4 feet' from the center speaker and therefore about 8 feet from each other. They are also toed in a few degrees and about 10 feet from the seating position. The tower tweeters are not at the same level as the center speaker tweeter as this is impossible to do in my setup though I also understand this is optimal. My seating position is nearly centered on the TV. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The rear surrounds (RS-42's) are just beside the listening position and about 7 feet off the ground. This is the null zone that is optimal for the bi/dipole speakers. I have a rear center channel speaker on a stand just behind the seating position at ear level. It is an old Yamaha that really needs upgrading to match my other speakers. I also use a red laser light to ensure that center and front L/R speakers are angled towards the listener. My sub is just to the left my left front tower. Both towers are very close to the wall (about 1 foot from the side and 1.5 feet from the rear). Personally I don't think this makes a difference in sound for the towers but definitely for the sub. I have all speakers set on "small" with all bass under 80 going to the sub.

I have the RS-42's for left and right surround sound and think they are great. I am looking to go to 7.1 at some point into the future and will most likely get the RB's for the rears due to the directional sound. I also think the RB's are better for dialogue vs. sound effects. I think the rears are intended more for dialogue anyway. I would only say to match the speaker model levels across the surrounds and rears, e.g. match RS-42's with RB-42's not RS-42's with RB-52's <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Just my thoughts but I am not nearly an expert.

Hello all, I currently have a Yamaha HTR-5740 a/v receiver with 6.1 Channels (75W each) for my home surround system. It is a good receiver with standard decoders; originally was part of a HTIB. I am looking to upgrade to the Yamaha RX-V1600 a/v receiver with 7.1 Channels (120W each) and plenty more options like HDMI switching, THX Select2, YPAO sound optimization, and more optical inputs. My main reason for upgrading is I now have significantly better speakers as shown below and feel the 5740 is not strong enough to bring out the full sound and detail the speakers are capable of delivering. I would think this is a signficant upgrade in a/v processing capacity. Every salesperson I talk to agrees - but I want somewhat more objective opinions. My questions are: Will the RX-V1600 upgrade deliver an appreciable difference in sound and detail? At 120 watts per channel, will it be too much power for the surrounds rated at 75 watts RMS? If I use the HDMI switching to connect my DirecTv HD satellite receiver, will I always have to have the RX-V1600 to simply watch TV? Whatever feedback you can provide would be great. Chitown2477 EXISTING SPEAKERS Klipsch RF-52 Floorstanding Loudspeaker, 100W RMS / 400W Peak, 96dB Klipsch RS-42 Surround Speaker, 75W RMS / 300W Peak, 93dB Klipsch RC-52 Center Channel, 125W RMS / 500W Peak, 96dB Definitive Technology Pro Sub 60, 150W RMS

Hi all, I talked with Cructhfield and they said HDMI 1.3 may not be widely released anytime soon for the consumer market. They claim this from there Denon and Yamaha reps. Has anyone heard similar news?

For those interested - this is what I found out about HDMI 1.3. However, please respond to the other questions in the original post if you can. Ask Engadget HD: Is it worth the wait for HDMI 1.3? Posted Oct 13th 2006 1:16PM by Matt Burns Filed under: Ask EngadgetHD The problem with blogs like ours is that you learn about technology at such a rapid pace that sometimes you put off purchasing something because you know that a better item is right around the corner. Such is the case with HDMI 1.3. Don wants a new LCD TV and receiver but wants to know if it is worth it to wait for HDMI 1.3? (Quick refresher course on HDMI 1.3: higher speed capacity, 46-bit color, support for lossless formats such as Dolby HD DTS-HD, smaller HDMI connector for portable devices.) So is it worth waiting for the new spec to hit TVs and receivers? No and maybe. HDMI 1.3 does allow for a higher color profile but this extra space is going to be used for creature comforts such as PIP and overlay menus; you will not likely see an increase in picture quality. We feel strongly that it isn't worth waiting for HDMI 1.3 to be included in a TV but it might be worth getting an HDMI 1.3 equipped AV receiver though. HDMI is a single cable solution and currently if you want the lossless audio such as Dolby TrueHD soundtrack from your HD DVD disc, a person needs to use six analog RCA cables instead of one HDMI cable. Many people keep audio receivers for years more than the TV stays as the main set in the household and you don't want to limit yourself in that regard but these receivers can cost lots more then your Best Buy/Circuit City ad piece. If a person is looking to drop more on the receiver then the TV, then yes, wait for HDMI 1.3 otherwise you are going to be waiting a long time for 'em to hit the $500 mark and still be quality. In the end Don, it's all about personal preference and how much of an investment it is for the person. Thanks for the question Don and hope it helped.

That has been a thought of mine. However, I suspect the first round of HDMI 1.3 receivers will be expensive (reserved for high-end receivers). So in late 2007 I am thinking about upgrading to a HDMI 1.3 DVD player and letting it pass the signal through to my HDMI 1.1 or 1.2 receiver. I have heard this will work. Has anyoen else heard the same.

I recently upgraded from a $500 HTIB system to Klipsch speakers described below. I continue to use the receiver that came with the HTIB and I think the receiver is not strong enough for the range of sound I am looking for. I expected to hear more dynamic sound, definition, and effects. Dont get me wrong, the speakers are excellent and I a SIGNFICANT improvement; however, I think they are not being driven properly. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Below are the three receivers I am contemplating purchasing over the next two weeks or so. Price range is $800 or so. I am looking for more clean power, HDMI (1080p) switching, and more optical inputs.I have put in my thoughts on each receiver. · Denon AVR-2307CI (High power amp, only 100w x 7, no learning /LCD remote · Sony STR-DG1000 (Learning /LCD remote, 110w x 7, not sure of how good Sony is for home theater) · Yamaha RX-V1600 (THD of 0.04 %, not sure if it has 1080p capable HMDI upconvert, learning /LCD remote, THX Select2 certified, 120w x 7, only $800 at Crutchfield) Any thoughts on the best receiver to get or any others to explore? Also, please advise on the following: 1. My research shows that THD of 0.01% is ideal. However, this spec is reserved for expensive receivers. What impact will a higher THD really have and does it impact stereo sound more than home theater sound? I almost want to buy the Yamaha solely for this reason 2. Is the upcoming HDMI 1.3 is worth waiting for to get true HD surround sound? 3. Should the THX Select2 certification be a big factor? (I think not but would like to hear from you) Thanks, Chitown2477 · Klipsch RF-52 Floorstanders, Klipsch RC-52 Center, Klipsch RS-42 Surrounds, Definitive Technology ProSub 60 · Yamaha HTR 5740 Receiver (85w x 6, originally part of a HTIB package) · RCA 50 Screenium DLP (1080i) · Xbox 360 with HD-DVD Player · Samsung Upconvert DVD Player · DirecTv HD satellite receiver