UFObuster

I had a lightning strke. My RF-7 pair was ruined. I had them for over 10 years. My perfect system. It was popular then to upgrade crossovers to DeanG's which I never let them out of my sight and did not do. Replaced with RF-7 iii. Lovely sound. Did Klipsch upgrade the crossovers in this intervening 10 years? Rhetorical question. I like what I am hearing. Roger

...a mistake that many HT enthusiasts make is neglecting to get a full-spectrum surround set of speakers. If it's just movies...it won't matter that much. But if you go with any serious 5 channel reproduction (SACD, DVD-A, all the new Dolby and DTS HD stuff), you're going to get full range sound sent to the surrounds. You need speakers with full range capability. No recommendation on model...just do the best you can.

...I enjoyed the mental image of the frazzled hair, lab coat, and SPL meter....I did it myself trying to tweak my Rotel processor. .. but my point may be more serious...I don't want to start another debate on tubes vs solid state. So, let me stipulate that tubes + heritage is the 2 channel nirvanna.....but advances in solid state pre/pros + solid state amps...are getting into the "critical" listening mode for 2 channel using reference standard speakers. Time + technology keeps closing the gap if you believe there is one. I'm encouraging all the s/s + reference speaker owners like me that they are not really that far off the mark of "critical listening" in 2 channel and they may be saving a lot of $$ and a lot of trouble. The newer technology is nearly a paradigm shift. A "critical" listener would be well served to take note.

...to those like me who wring out 2 channel from their HT systems, a quick note: I just replaced my Rotel RSP -1068 pre/pro with the new Marantz AV7005. The technology just leaps ahead. I use a 2 channel Rotel RB-1080 (200w) to RF7 speakers for exclusive 2-channel (with added support for HT otherwise). ...Like many of my breathren, I will always be on a budget combining HT with 2 channel (budget=oxymoron, right?)...But, the AV7005 with Audyssey room correction tames so many of my problems I am in audio bliss (without Heritage stuff). Best component I've owned in ages. I'm not touting Marantz because there are so many good affordable pre/pros around; the new stuff just reeks with better sound stage, detail, etc.... ...yes, sublime 2 channel can be done in solid state without heritage speakers and not give up all the other goodies....hang in there, my solid state buddies...

Spent some time pondering what to replace my Rotel RSP-1068 with. Various other audio sites were not tripping over themselves over the Rotel 1570. So, I took a hard look at the AV7005. Snap decision...bought it. Allowed me to take advantage of the Oppo BD-93 and room correction. This Audyssey correction of the 7005 cannot be over-hyped. The complete multi-tasking of the processor is so far ahead of my old 1068. I use original RF-7 front, RC-7 center, RF-5 surround, and an old RC-35 center back. The 7005's room correction took all of the "bite" out of the RF-7 (uncorreccted crossover vs new model) vs the Rotel which in retrospect was bright. It sounds like I traded speakers!!! Maybe the Rotel 1570 with room correction might be as good. The price diff is obvious. Sound stage, separation, detail, all excellent. I still use my Rotel amps. An RB1080 exclusively for the RF-7 and an RMB 1075 for all the rest. I'm using Oppos's analog out puts for CD and it's just outstanding....sitting here with Dave Brubeck on. Marantz = A+ Wish I'd moved sooner.

I've gotten along well with a Rotel RSP-1068. It will accept analog (multi-cable) from Blu-Ray, etc. Although I've not tried it. It does fine with 7.1 and two-channel (thru a dedicated 2 channel amp). It handles the usual multi-channel formats...DVD-A, SACD, DTS, Dolby, etc...but not the newest sound formats found on Blu-Ray....altough I know the players with do the processing and pass thru on analog. Before I get too excited about any upgrade...is there really enough difference between the new Blu-Ray sound formats and the traditional "hi-def'" music formats. Now be honest about it. I listen to music mostly...and frankly don't find much media in music/concert DVDs which employ Blu-Ray. I don't want to spend $1-2 K dollars just to 'listen' to an enhanced Shrek-2. On the otherhand, if there is really an advantage gained in the new "lossless" formats, I may be interested as soon a media is available for it....(not just car and bus crashes in movies). But is the difference actually there or is it just hype. It has long been argued that standard Red-book CD quality stands up as equal to current mutli-channel modes if they are both compared (double blind) in two channels so the listener isn't wowed by the 'razzel-dazzle' of multi-channel. I think the link to this is: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/ So, do I need to be looking around to upgrade this excellent processor I already have....or are there still people waiting for it all to shake-out into some solid consesus on this new media format? Your views appreciated. Thanks, Roger

Good advice above, get a good sub. Then, here is a copy of a new post I just did to "draynes" who posted "new avr and new klipsch owner has a few questions": To "draynes" "Since I have the RF-7, RC-7 in front and I use a pair of the RF-5 for surround and a single RC35 for a rear channel (6.1), I thought I'd give you this feedback. I had an Onkyo receiver (85 watts per in 5.1) when I first bought Klipsch (the RF-5 for fronts at that time). When I added the RF-7, RC-7 combo later (moving the 5's to the surround position), it really strained this system. It was LOUD for sure but not as good sound quality as I expected. Did a lot of chat here...dismissed some good advice and upgraded the Onkyo to a more powerful Yamaha (an RXV model around 120 wpc). Better. I had a little buyer's remorse over that Yamaha and went back to the shop with a Klipsch Forum idea: I took out a Rotel RB-1080 2 channel (200wpc) and used it for the RF-7 with the Yammi as a pre-amp. The Yammi continued to power the center, surround, and back. The difference was the most significant change in my history with this stuff. Apparently (citing this forum), the RF-7 has a very wide impedance range going very low in some demanding passages and thus requires more power than you might think. It also helps to have the single dedicated amp and power source for these fine speakers. So, my advice would be: find a very good (but not necessarily high powered) AVR with all the new 'goodies' saving some $$ by shaving watts. Get a dedicated amp (a good quality new/used at least 200 watts for your front RF-7...taking the big load away from the AVR, it will handle the rest with much better outcome). You can probably do this for not a lot more money than going very high-end AVR alone. Your system will be more flexible, the RF7s will be much happier, and you'll have a nice 2-channel rig in the middle of your HT system and left over channels for one or two back speakers. This is the advice I would give to anyone really hooked on all the great options available in newer AVRs paired with some Klipsh speakers(RF-7 in particular). Separating the front pair just gives the whole system a jolt.....and worked very well for me until I finally upgraded again and use a separate RMB-1075 (120wpc) for the center,surround, and back. But this last step only gave me a subtle improvement (regarding power). The BIG daddy move was powering those fronts the right way. Good luck and have fun." Incidently, I see several posters above whose advice I followed in this story, Arky in particular (thanks), and several others. The "impedance" issue is real and better explained in another post above. Good luck and have fun! Roger

Since I have the RF-7, RC-7 in front and I use a pair of the RF-5 for surround and a single RC35 for a rear channel (6.1), I thought I'd give you this feedback. I had an Onkyo receiver (85 watts per in 5.1) when I first bought Klipsch (the RF-5 for fronts at that time). When I added the RF-7, RC-7 combo later (moving the 5's to the surround position), it really strained this system. It was LOUD for sure but not as good sound quality as I expected. Did a lot of chat here...dismissed some good advice and upgraded the Onkyo to a more powerful Yamaha (an RXV model around 120 wpc). Better. I had a little buyer's remorse over that Yamaha and went back to the shop with a Klipsch Forum idea: I took out a Rotel RB-1080 2 channel (200wpc) and used it for the RF-7 with the Yammi as a pre-amp. The Yammi continued to power the center, surround, and back. The difference was the most significant change in my history with this stuff. Apparently (citing this forum), the RF-7 has a very wide impedance range going very low in some demanding passages and thus requires more power than you might think. It also helps to have the single dedicated amp and power source for these fine speakers. So, my advice would be: find a very good (but not necessarily high powered) AVR with all the new 'goodies' saving some $$ by shaving watts. Get a dedicated amp (a good quality new/used at least 200 watts for your front RF-7...taking the big load away from the AVR, it will handle the rest with much better outcome). You can probably do this for not a lot more money than going very high-end AVR alone. Your system will be more flexible, the RF7s will be much happier, and you'll have a nice 2-channel rig in the middle of your HT system and left over channels for one or two back speakers. This is the advice I would give to anyone really hooked on all the great options available in newer AVRs paired with some Klipsh speakers(RF-7 in particular). Separating the front pair just gives the whole system a jolt.....and worked very well for me until I finally upgraded again and use a separate RMB-1075 (120wpc) for the center,surround, and back. But this last step only gave me a subtle improvement. The BIG daddy move was powering those fronts the right way. Good luck and have fun. Roger

At the moment, it's the live stream from WBGO (public radio) Jazz88FM in Newark, NJ. It's really better than the internet and pay channels ( Sirius, etc) with a heavy tilt to traditional jazz musicians.

After reading the entire thread....I, too, think it's all about speaker placement. Regarding your hardware...I have the RB-1080 from Rotel specifically for driving the RF-7. This is a well treated subject on these forums, and the choice is sound and very complementary to the RF-7. Current requirements of the low-impedance swings of the RF-7 are easily met. The Acurus for surround, and center is way more than enough. The Adcom pre/pro...well I just don't have experience with it, but I don't see it as a major bottle neck either. It looks good on paper. My RF-7s are sitting "free and clear", more than 20 inches from any wall (or cabinet for that matter) and sound great with the Rotel amp. I would stick with what you have....a "receiver" would only interest me if it had a bunch of bells and whistles that I really need...but I would still use my external amps anyway....separate power supplies, transformers, etc...is great to have for getting the last bit of detail. You also have a potentially dynamite 2 channel playback set up with the separate 2channel amp dedicated to your RF-7 mains. Depending on the source material, I'm often more impressed with the 2 channel output alone than I am with multi...again, it depends on the source. Bottom line, you've got the right equipment. Follow the advice so well given so far. Get those babies out in the open! check polarity!! get a SPL meter and get the output balanced!.....check room furnishings...tweak...and then rebalance again. That great sound is in there somewhere! Roger

The silver lining: this article is about digital rights management. I'm all for MP3....you can own it, copy it, trade it to your heart's content without interference from Apple or Microsoft. DRM is the Darth Vader of the music industry. I can't even listen to some downloads that I PAID for unless I renew my licensing agreement with somebody, somewhere....this sucks! That said, I do not fear for full spectrum sound. It may not be as large a market...nor in the traditional CD format....but I don't forsee this youth market 10 years from now sitting in their living/entertainment rooms having a party with everyone silently plugged into their personal music playback device. Music playback in one's home with full dynamic range is so gratifying and so impressive that if you're a music "have not", you'll know it eventually. This is a transition time...objective testing is showing that the typical CD...IF recorded well...is about as good as most people can hear. Enhance the dynamic range...maybe up to 20bit words...make it downloadable....stored losslessly in home music servers...voila. The CD disc itself maybe dying but the format still looks viable not to mention adding multi channels.

Since I use 5.1 (and 6.1) for a lot of multi-channel listening....I prefer direct radiators for surrounds instead of purpose built surround speakers which "scatter" sound. Someone above mentioned RB-75 bookshelfs...sounds promising. I use a pair of RF-5 towers. A lot less space intrusive than a second pair of RF-7 and very complimentary. Judging by the content of what I own in SACD, DVD-A, DTS, and Dolby records and concert DVDs, the surround content in a lot of recordings is rather thin. So, I think matching RF-7s in back is just too much....the RF-5 is just about right. Never heard the RB-75 but it may be worth a look. Have fun with this....nice problem.

It really just comes down to what you can actually see. This chart has been passed around a lot and deserves attention: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/0602_tech_talk2_large.jpg As can be seen, if you're 10 feet away from your screen, then the display will have to exceed 50 inches before you can actually see a difference in anything better than 720p. Heck, even a regular DVD will look just as good as HD if you're looking at a 30 inch display at 10 feet! Fret all you want about the details but the eye has limitations. This is the same story as on the audio side...new "hi-def" audio formats are not distinguishable (in detail thru 2 channel) in double-blind listening tests from the old "Redbook" CD standard. Check it out: http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1 Once again....there are physical limitations....and we are just about there. Beware the hype!

Let the buyer beware: http://www.high-endaudio.com/magaz.html#Cab http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf starts on pdf page 42 http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Nothing to add to that......well put....and I'm ritualizing a glass brandy myself, right now.....

Thinking about looking for a refurbed classic. Does anyone rember the Dual 1019 or 1219? Which was the better of the two? I know they are not "hi-end" but how do they compare with other vintage stuff?

.....brand new....Allison K. and Robert P......you gottit.......blue-grass meets Led Zep. This is one incredible album...just released in the last week or so. Check it out...title is "Raising Sand": http://www.amazon.com/Raising-Robert-Plant-Alison-Krauss/dp/B000UMQDHC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8862669-7290219?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1194139322&sr=1-1 Rumor has it that the much hyped Led Zep' reunion was delayed by Plant's involvement in this project and not because of Jimmy Pages' broken finger: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/arts/music/03zepp.html Seriously, you won't want to miss this CD....produced by T. Bone Burnett.....excellent reproduction....sweet. Enjoy!

Blue Jeans = def OK .....good product, great service, fast, reasonable price. I especially like the color coding for multichannel. Nice stuff!

In perspective, I would say that the Boston Acoustic Society's study published in the AES Journal this September has far more to say about the future life of the CD medium. I respect vinyl and I, too, held onto everything I ever bought in vinyl....but....When i want to hear "Let in Bleed" or "Thick as a Brick"...the dynamics of the CD are hard to beat. The wire.come article was interesting but unrelated to anything that I listen to. Other posters and the article noted the lack of dynamics in a lot of modern recordings but this is not the fault of the medium. The dynamics issue certainly gives the edge to CDs when comparing a lot of classical music recordings....esp when remasted from the 70's and 80's. I don't care to hype CDs but there just isn't much alternative with a clear audio edge.

...(ahem,,, in case you didn't get it...Roger Water's 'In the Flesh'.....that's the real Pink deal)... Some NEW Music DVD?....well....Yes!.....The 2007 release of Chick Corea's "The Ultimate Adventure".....A very high quality film of a concert in Barcelona, Spain with Chick's current band. The setting is photographically baroque....the music is intellectually pleasing....the emotional content is powerful...the use of classical Falminco dancers during the performance is....well....you just have to see it.....AND it stands well as just a great musical offering even if it wasn't a DVD...the best recommendation I can give it. ...dittos to Shadows of Motown, Diana Krall, Allison Krause, Stevie Ray.....Add Clapton's "Sessions for Robert J."...all not new...

Following up is this article from "Audio Critic" http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1 The consensus is that muti-channel may be more esthetically pleasing but NOT more accurate in audible sound reproduction.

Can't read the article unless I join AES.... Is this article posted anywhere? Anybody have a link? Thanks

Thanks Klewless for the reply........I'm not an audio engineer but I want to understand what's happening. For anyone, see if I've got this right: 1) the CD is digital.....in PCM mode. 2) the CD player has a DAC onboard. 3) pre-pros and receivers have DACs onboard So: 1) if I take analog from the CD player and use analog bypass in the Pre/pro.....I am using the player's DAC and I'm subject to it for quality. No bass management etc in the Rotel. Its only as good as the CD player makes it. 2) if I take the digital signal from the CD player..ie, thru the optical cable, then I'm using the pre/pro's DAC to convert to analog with the option of using bass management etc in the Rotel (or other pre-pro). Question: Unless the CD player is a damn good one with the most excellent DAC, why would anyone use the 2 channel bypass mode in a preamp or receiver? Wouldn't it make sense to use the pre-amp's internals playing back in stereo or PCM mode if the pre-amp is a good one? It seems to me its all about signal processing and when it gets converted. Is this correct? thanks again Roger

Maybe I just made the question too difficult; I'll try again. I know what PCM means. If CDs are recorded using PCM, which mode would I chose to hear it in for best results: analog 2-channel "by-pass" (a pre-amp option) or PCM-stereo (another pre-amp optiion). What are the technical differences and is it audible with good equipment? Anybody know this?

I just want to understand what the 2-channel options that I have really do. I think I know, but I'll float the question: ...I have the Rotel RSP-1068 pre/pro. I play back CDs with a Denon 3910. I also have a Yamaha DVD-C750 reserved for it's 5-tray "party-pack" playback of CDs. ...The RSP-1068 gives me options: 2-channel "bypass" , 2-channel stereo (sub is present) or 2-channel PCM. I have analog cables from the Denon and optical from the Denon and Yammi. ...I'm set up for 2 channel with a separate Rotel RB-1080 amp to my Klipsch RF-7 speakers. I also have the 'pure direct' mode off of the Denon. I'm guessing that it's a matter of which DAC is used. I'm also guessing that the 'best' 2 channel that I'll get is from the Denon 'pure direct' to the 'bypass' mode of the 1068. I'd love to have a better technical explaination of what is going on with these options. Your comments appreciated. Thanks Roger