stormin

Congrats to your friend on finding Klipsch. Can see he already holds Marantz dear now just need to introduce QSC to the mix. If your going to live in the SS world what a way to live!

Doesnt like 80% of the music live in the midrange? Another factor comes to mind. Build Quality!

Thats what I was thinking Bobby. Your systems are almost identical. A little larger tv and a bigger stand but that by no means equals bigger sound. Nice gear guys.

QSC's just flat out get er done![H]

Nah I like yours! It has that grungy rock and roll look. Too Cool[H]

Let me just give you a little perspective with the equipment you are using. I've powered my Chorus II's with an Adcom 555mkII which I bought when it was new. The bass was tight but was overpowered by the mids and highs because it really doesnt mate well with Klipsch because it is bright and forward sounding. I wasn't done yet. Then I bought the Adcom 565 monos. To be honest not much of a difference. Then I went to an Aragon 4004mkII. Let me tell you there is no comparing Adcom to Aragon. The Aragon which is 200wpc just completely embarrased the Adcom which is 200 wpc and the larger Adcoms which were 300wpc. Much more powerful sounding and now there was bass. The Aragon doubles down from 200@8 to 400@4 . The Adcom 555mkII is 200@8 and 325@4 . Then we go to a current amplifier in the line up which is a QSC SRA 2422. It is 425@8 and 750@4 and it smokes the Aragon in every category you can think of. As you can see the QSC doesnt quite double down and the Adcoms dont either. But I think more than doubling down for klipsch its more about voicing of the particular amplifier. Klipsch like more of a warm laid back amplifier than one that is forward and bright. And here is the kicker the Adcom 565 monos the Aragon 4004mkII and the QSC SRA 2422 all cost right at 2000.00 new. But they are light years of a difference in sound as you progress from one to the other. Nice avatar by the way[] But as you can see I had mine mounted[] Good Luck.

VRD's and the rest to the better half!

Not to be argumentative, but that's what they call them on their Website. [] Plz do show where? I see them in the "other" category. You realize he is talking about Chorus Forte Quartets? The only real mistake I've seen Klipsch make is not giving such a great line a name. I mean really WTH!

I dig the way the Doctor and the Dukester think[Y]

Hopefully the replacement process goes quick and smooth for ya. Sorry to hear of your troubles. Hopefully Klipsch is on top of these amp problems with the Sub-10 and get things as they should be. All we want to do is enjoy the tunes while staring at our cool Klipsch speakers!

LMAO OB. Be nice now! Remember the ole saying "Death Before Disco".

LMAO!

Yes. Yes they do. Hogwash! And I know for a FACT that is Hogwash!

I don't believe QSC falls into the chimp amp category. I believe its more of the gorilla type that Craig and A. Flynn refer.[] Will you be offering those in kit form or preassembled Craig?[] I normally would agree with Craig on the weight argument but these lightweight QSC's have either changed or warped my mind.

That really is a hard woofer to get moving. But then again tone of bass is a good thing is it not? Also from your photo it appears your speakers are very close together. Your interactions with the room will have alot to do with your perceived bass as well.

Oh yea!! If you install them backwards the sound will come out of your preamp. If you do this with just the right cable the preamp producing the sound will way out perform your speakers. LMAO!

Same tweet is the only thing in common Doc. He has the the Chorus I which is different in almost every aspect from both Chorus II and the KLF 30.

How's that 2325 coming along Arf?

I don't believe people buy high powered amps for volume(you know how loud the darn thing will play). It's the weight and authority at any volume thats a turn on! And without a doubt amps aren't built the same. Just because she says shes got big watts doesn't mean she can play like it.

Noway does the Chorus II require a sub for great 2 channel listening IMHO. That's gonna depend on the music to which you listen. I know I couldn't live with Chorus II's without a sub... [] I was under that same impression with other amplification I've used with the Chorus II's. It seems that between the Marantz as a pre and QSC as the amplifier the combination leans towards the warm,rich side with a very strong foundation. With other ss set ups I've had in the past the Chorus II's were always lean.But just to give folks who are looking for the perfect system for themselves I must say that I do give up resolution over some of the other systems I've had. It's sorta like pick your poison and find the best compromises. I would imagine I fall into the category of a sub with my music tastes. It just appears that its going to take a darn good sub to even be heard without being boomy. And yes I think the Dukester just got the 43 and the 48 confused and I do believe it is a pro woof as he suggests. And juice and synergy appears to be the answer for the 48.

Noway does the Chorus II require a sub for great 2 channel listening IMHO.

My Chorus II's have the K 48's. Never heard of another woofer in them. I understand there have been many versions of the K 48 but still only woofer I ever recall being used in them. And probably more than any other speaker I've owned I agree with the woof needing juice. The more juice the tighter more controlled and weight from the Chorus II. Probably of all the speakers I know personaly it would by far be the best candidate for biamping the top section from the bottom. Might be the only complaint I personally would have with them is they could of used 2 pairs of binding posts.

Your absolutely correct Ben. That little tid bit went right over my head[:$]

Oh, HMMM Tubes were here first. I dont know about you but I grew up with tubes playing. I would imagine all of us middle aged to old fogies grew up with tubes a playin. Its just another approach.