tigerbalm

the guy's problem is elementary. IMOH, acoustics should be explored much later.

That's becoming over complexified. He's complaining about disturbing highs and lack of midrange - thats due to the design of his (reference) horn. problem is solved/avoided by tube amplification, this is an emperical fact I'd like to guarantee. Now the lack of bass is due to the 1/8 loading design of all Klipsch products that must be placed near corners, otherwise nothing below ~100hz, including the reference flagship.

been there done that, get off solid state stuff (great for other speakers, not Klipsch) and move into tubes. (you can leave cdp solid-state no problems). Miracles do happen. (forget about acoustics...)

Howdy, I'm missing this great discontinued center speaker, any ideas on where to get it ? (ebay/craig doesnt at the moment)

1. What's the distance between listenning position and speakers. 2. Are they both placed near room corners, and what is the shape of the room. 3. What transporter is he using? (e.g. CD player model, etc) 4. Can you get your RB75 to his room to evaluate the differences. As far as I know it's the same horn, but you share different acoustics.

UFO, thanks for the illustration, but your assumption that tubes are better than solid-state, doesn't apply for everyone, regardless of what setup they've got. It's truly a matter of taste, sonic-education, etc. I can understand the refinement you're capable of achieving by replacing tubes, etc. But my question was explicitly referred to solid-state setups. Note that solid-state equipment can get pricey as tubes. The example I gave with budget NAD & Rotel were just for experimental purposes, and do not bias the discussion towards mid-fi equipment at all. Personally, I accept your thesis that if I dont really care that much then $800 rack equipment will do, I think it's consensus.

I've seen a graph, dont know its source, at http://www.overton.ru/pressa_st.php?id_st=26 It's in russian, but can easily be (automatically)translated into English using AltaVista's babelfish. The graph actually gives a dip of 3.8ohm at 107hz and another similar one at 10Khz. Are there any known reliable measurments? It's not crucial at all, but once and for all it ought to be put into perspective, now that the RF-7 is sold out maybe the justice will be given to its successor.

Eh, maybe it is like in your avatar ... but an empirical result was presented.

whell, thanks for your insight. I'm refining my question to refer only to solid-state amplifiers. Adding more input: I've conducted an experiment with two different branded pre-amplifiers and four corresponding power amplifiers, e.g. NAD pre and Rotel Pre and NAD power 50 and NAD power 150 and Rotel power 50 and Rotel power 200. Regardless of the pre-amplifier, I got quite different results with matching high-power amplifiers. This phenomena is repeated throughout the forum. The high-power results are flavoured with more punchy bass, faster dynamics. Indeed, each amplifier and its own characteristcs, but I'm talking about the greatest common divisor available.

Hi All. I'm trying to understand the long-discussed issue of RF-7 and amplification concerns. I understand perfectly the theory behind efficiency and 2.83volts/meter but practically I bump into intriguing results. Since the RF-7 are so efficient, why is it (told) rewarding to use a quality high-power solid-state rather than a quality 50watts? What is this thing with the speaker's impendance dips in its lower frequencies? any measurments taken by somebody? In practice, no one gets even near the clipping area of a 50watts amplifier, so why a 150watts amplifier of the same brand (with the same pre) sounds better in moderate volume levels? Thanks!