prego

What is the purpose of those flooding plots? There are plenty of combos. Nothing which tells us something new. Dean, no contradiction in what I'm saying - I dont care the speaker to have a lousy curve, but if sonics are problematic then curve may second that. This is what a (not) necessary condition means. Second, if you follow carefully, you realize that my complaint initially was about the RF-7 being sibiliance intolerant, and the fixing for me was to go back to stock crossovers. I tried to hang on the measurment first published by Trey in order to second the samples I gave. So if you think your RF-7 sound great for music, using my logics, then dont buy those measurment stuff and move on. Thats just my opinion and interpretation.

So post a full commercialized measurement. (this is the first time I hear those) When the RF-7 Sound & Vision measurments came the forum was kidding about 'em(same goes for RF-83). Persoanlly, I dont think good measurements is a necessary condition for a good 2ch speaker, however if there's a problem then they can support it. Both HF and LF curves look awful on the measurment you posted. It's not the first time we observe measurments, stereophile publish that with every speaker. But bottom line for me, I think the whole reference line is a 2ch suicide, is truly a remarkable home theater speaker but awfully unbalanced when it comes to enjoying music.

Agreed, but on a different perspective (such as customer's), Statements like this: RF-7 Specifications frequency response 32Hz-20kHz ±3dB Are why I'm becoming skeptic about some speaker manufacturers' statements. (I know the reasons; measurments ways, etc, plenty of contradiction options)

[8-)]

POST ERASED mndeem is correct No need to cross the fence. as said, I think I've made my point.

Maybe C.T.U. tracked down the crossover back and forth, installing some microchip device in the caps, after all it's the middle east, RF-7(or any speaker) crossovers dont pass here too frequently, perhaps jacksonbart can bart with some info he has over here [] All I can say is "the emperor wears no clothes" ? ;-) No .. People dont exactly remember how it was before since they get it back only after few days. All they have in their minds is all sort of HYPE they read in the forum regarding the upgrade. I believe (never checked) that parts replacement does improve the sonic. Thats why (intuitively) top notch (aka hi-fi) amplifiers use high quality parts, and IMO the crossover is no exceptional. The interesting point here is why so many people want their crossover upgraded - If I get new speakers which I like and enjoy I wouldn't want their crossover modified. As far as I know, It's not such a common notion in the stereo world (to new speakers whatsoever).

Dean, thanks a lot for you being sincere. I really think your work is of top notch. However, IMO, I think that the interpertation of the tweak was misleading, and somewhat amateur in the sense that no substantial measurment/proof was made to support such a mod that was applied to so many. My god, did you see the peak in the horn measured by Klipsch? it's a dead evidence that the RF-7 is not for 2ch listenning, I really hope the RF-83 measuers better. Again, as always in stereo - everything is subjective and constist of many parameters. If you sure you like it - then it worth it. If I get a new speaker after the RF7 which is in need of a crossover upgrade - I'd contact you again, given that you'd be objective as always ;-)

The opposite is true. But following your path, if you wish - switch the RCAs of your transport instead of changing the balance. Second, the HF only sample can let you concentrate (without the LF bias) on the ringing of one of the channels, when listened only to this one. second it gives you the option of wiring the horn directly to the amp withuot damaging it. I hope my experiment was clear to everyone, let me know otherwise. Alright, this argument is no big deal, so are the measruments. What's important are the samples. If you still find them insufficient for your standards, then I'll provide you one channel at a time, also - you can generate yourself - it happens on all female voice.

I'm providing you with two evidences; my samples (try them to understand what I'm refering to) and Trey's measurments. If you check those graphs in detail, given 0.1db error and/or manufacturing defect - whatever, it's still not in the direction of what the upgrade had promised. The 7.5khz diff is 0.5db, and like you said (hence the quote, apples and oranges look almost the same) can make ears bleed or smooth. Please note that, so far (since the mod was introduced at 2004), all the discussions included words, finally you're provided with measurments and samples to try yourself. What can you ask for more.

Exactly (EDIT (post previous post): DrWho, zoom into 7.5khz in WInWord, while in Edit Mode. There you will see accurate thin lines and not bogus. Every square is approx 2db vertically, and the jump of the blue(DeangG) there has max diff of about quarter a square , i.e. 0.5db)

Trey, thanks for the attached measurments info. 1. I've zoomed(500%) in into where the sibilance exaggerations are (around 8Khz +/- 3khz) and measurements show that DeanG'd are consistently slightly stronger there (approx 0.25db) than the stock. 2. To my surprise, the zoomed picture (how can I attach a pic here) reveals also a decrease in upper midrange of DeanG'd (as leok felt). SPL vs Freq graphs were never my reference, it can be made flat on a whooping $50 chinese made driven. However, the coloration of the speaker is what interest me (I love the horn's one), and the samples (of which I gave link to above) should demonstrate that. 3. Trey, do you also have an impendance vs. freq comparison between stock & DeanG ? Maybe there it's even more clearer, since the mod is specifically to resistance in the circuit... 4. Trey, I've found a Klipsch document on the HF crossover design of revision C, see: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/storage/6/844278/RF7.pdf , where it appears there that the resistor is of 3ohm. Is it accurate and if so, were RF-7's horn had revision as well? (that it was necessary to compensate for them on the HF board) Thanks.

In respecting the community (I have no other motivation), I initially wanted Dean to inspect those samples. However, I haven't gotten an answer from him yet. I'll let you judge for yourself. In the following temporary link: http://rapidshare.com/files/63448935/cross.zip , please find two WAV files which are loseless (i.e. no compression at all was applied). They're actually the same passage. They can be burnt (accuralty) using any decent audio CD burner, and then played back on your setup. 1. "LF and HF.wav" is the passage, full spectrum. 2. "Only HF.wav" is the same passage, with just freqs above 2000hz, just to let you concentrate on the HF alone. (also you can use this one when the cross is bypassed on the HF, in case you want to neutralize everything) While auditioning, pay attention to the "S" in the 'search' word, no matter at what volume. It rings noticably more on the DeanG'd crossover. The experiment we did was to take off the paralleled resistor Dean put on the 2ohm (i.e. the mod) from only one of the speakers, leaving the other alone. And while listenning, to play with Balance L and R and compare. It's very clear. This is just one sample, please note that problem exist in many other samples that we found, actually almost all sibillance intriguing tests. I'd prefer Dean himself (or leok) to auditon this for themselves before others, since it requires desoldering the resistor. Once we hear (hopefully unbiased) impressions, lets go into conclusions. This of course applies only to those who had upgraded their RF-7 through DeanG.

Problem solved. Just to make sure and prepare evidence, with giving respect to people, I will report soon. As a teaser, I can assure that it will certainly amaze many people that hold the RF-7.

no no and no the phenomena is of the rf-7 peaking in that range. second, I was refering to your statement of whether rf-7 is for one and not the other

I'm not sure it's a matter of taste. They simply underperform at several elementary tests, such as reproducing accurate voice, IMO.