Dr Sevrin

It works with all ProMedia products - click on the User's Guide link for specifics. The note refers to an adaptor that is recommended for connecting sub and center channels. The adaptor (not the AT) is "for use with the ProMedia 5.1 only", since this is the only ProMedia with a center channel.

July 21 at 1:00 am. Free 5.1!

The 3DSS review of the 4.1 (with the improved midrange)is expected very soon. If you can't wait, you can get a pretty good idea of the improvement by checking out their review of the ProMedia 2.1. Probably the main difference between the crossfires and the new 4.1 (since the midrange has been fixed) is the the up-front Klipsch sound (which some find harsh) vs. the more laid back crossfire sound. If you prefer the latter and don't want the subwoofer power of the ProMedias, and can't afford the price tag of the crossfires, the Monsoon MM-2000 is a very good option. Head to head comparisons between the MM-2000 and the above two are also expected soon at 3dss , but you can get a good idea of what to expect with their MM-1000 review.

Not likely to ever see this beauty as product but you could easily make a 5.2 system by connecting the CP and sub of a 2.1, 4.1, or v.2-400 to the back channels of a 5.1 as is done in the 4.2 setup. The downside is you would have seperate volume controls for the font and back, as in the 4.2, but the up side is 5.2 baby! This would also be a viable option for 4.1 and v.2-400 owners if the elusive 4.1 ---> 5.1 ugrade ever becomes a reality. The upgrade to 5.1 would involve connecting the sats of a 4.1 or v.2-400 to the new sub, center, and control pod (using their existing wires, they are otherwise functionally interchangable with the new satellites), but those who want to keep their old sub and CP could connect them as indicated above for 5.2 action...

In direct comparisons the ProMedia 2.1 did come out ahead of the Monsoon MM-1000 in several respects at 3DSS, but this is not to say that everyone will prefer the ProMedia. While many like the up front and center Klipsch sound, a characteristic that is largely attributable to the horn loaded tweaters, others find it harsh and/or perceive overly exaggerated detail. My guess is that this is why the monsoons are frequently credited with better upper range when in fact they have significant rolloff in comparison to the ProMedias. The ProMedias do have an exeptionally low sub-satellite crossover as multimedia systems go, and in this respect they behave as though the satellites have larger drivers. This enhances stereo separation and 3D effects, since the sub isn't supplementing the midrange nearly as much as other systems (and the Monsoons in particular). On the other hand, some may not like the resultant "dark" sound of the Pros, and although the Monsoons crossovers are rather high (especially the MM-700), the Monsoons are otherwise superior to all other multimedia speakers for 3D effects (the downside of which is you have a rather small sweet spot and significant sound quality degredation outside of it). Two things to keep in mind as you compare are that the harshness of new speakers tends to mellow after an initial break in period, and the listening setting may give you a false impression of how the set will perform at home or in an office. Whenever possible audition using material that you are familiar with, and try to make the conditions as similar as possible from one place to the next if you can't do a side by side comparison. Direct comparisons between the ProMedia 4.1 and Monsoon MM-2000 are expected soon at 3DSS, so anyone on the fence may want to wait a little longer...

Another option you may want to consider for speakers is Axiom (http://www.axiomaudio.com). Their products have received rave reviews for their affordable prices and performance that equals much more expensive equipment. Complete 5.1 systems range from $850 for their "micro" system to about $2400 for their "ultimate HT experience" (USD).

Well, you could use the old sub with the rear channels. Keep the original control pod and sub and run the rear channels through them as is done in the 4.2 setup. If you ran the rear channels directly from the sound card to the old CP/sub you would't need any additional parts to make the connections, but you would have to control the rear volume seperately, as in the 4.2 - at least until everything was in balance and then you could use software controls. On the other hand, with the appropriate adapters you might be able to run the rear channels from the new sub to the old CP, which would allow rear volume control from the new control module. The trick would be turning the surround (on the new control module) and the old CP volume and sub levels down enough so that the rears/old sub wouldn't overpower the fronts/new sub (since they would be running from an amplified source), and for that reason it may not work at all. If it did work you could adjust the old CP volume & sub levels once to balance the rears/old sub with the fronts/new sub, and then from that point forward you could use the new control module as you would with the 5.1.

quote: from what i understood from him, he would want a new sub and center channel and keep the old setup. have two subs and 5 satelites. That's not what XCQtioner stated: quote: Just wondering if there is a possibility that Klipsch will provide an upgrade for the 4.1's, to make them 5.1's. Nothing in there at all about 5.2... quote: but the crossover in teh satelites is new, even newer than teh 4.1's. the sub ranges hae been raised to take less of the base from teh satelites, there may be some problems using old sats. with new crossover. Not true either. The "new" crossover in the 5.1 satellites is the new crossover in the 4.1 satellites. The v.2-400 satellites have the older crossover. The satellite crossovers affect the transition between the midrange driver and the tweeter and have no effect on the sub-satellite transition; that's a completely different crossover. Again, the 4.1 satellites are identical to the 5.1 satellites internally. The 4.1 and v.2-400 satellites are functionally interchangable with the 5.1 satellites. Upgraders would not have the spring-clip wire connections that are present on the new satellites, and they would still have the original lighter gauge wire for their satellites (unless they upgraded these seperatetely). They also wouldn't have the angle adjustment that is present on the new 5.1 satellites. They would, however, have a great 5.1 setup. It's not likely to ever happen, however, unless enough people let Klipsch know they want the upgrade...

Actually, from a technical standpoint there really are none of the issues Justin suggests and it would be quite easy to upgrade from the v.2-400 or 4.1 to the equivalent of the new 5.1. Simply use the old satellites with the new sub, center and control module (dump the old sub and control pod, recycle them with some other speakers, or whatever). This is because internally the 4.1 satellites are identical to the 5.1 satellites - and the v.2-400 satellites only differ with respect to the crossovers, so they are functionally interchangable. The old satellites would obviously have to continue to use wires with mini-jacks at the speaker end (unless you wanted to do some modifications, of course), unlike the 5.1, which uses spring-clips, but I don't think this would be problem for the vast majority of potential upgraders (some people have had issues with them, but most are quite happy). The prospect of an upgrade package becoming a reality seems pretty bleak at this point, however, and depends on whether Klipsh deems it practicle to produce such a product, assuming there would be sufficient demand, and of course the cost. Please see the discussion on this topic in the 4.1 section. Fortunately, Kipsch is a company that listens, so perhaps if enough v.2-400 and 4.1 owners express interest...

quote: Keep in mind the ProMedias are manufactured overseas, and shipped to Klipsch as complete systems. When we start breaking down system into parts, the cost of all the parts put together adds up to more than the whole. This is true with many things...Isn't it cheaper to purchase a computer already put together than it is to buy each piece separately, including all the software? Understood, but the suggestion doesn't really entail breaking it down into its respective parts (and of course the computer analogy holds for different reasons). The proposed upgrade would only differ from the full product in that the satellites would not be included(and perhaps their wires would be excluded as well, if they are already packaged seperately from the other wires/cables). Perhaps it wouldn't be practical, but I think it just might - and it's ceratinly worthy of serious consideration.

quote: trust me, if klispch thought that they could help you guys out by making an upgrade, they would have. they made teh 4.2 for ppl wanting the 4.1... what you should do is stop complaining. the wiring in the satelites and the sub are different... that could casue problems and more ocmplaints from ppl like you who want to get more than they deserve. Nobody's complaining here - just trying to have a constructive discussion. My point was that it seems illogical that the 5.1 minus the satellites would cost more then the complete 5.1 package. Yes, the sub is different - that's the reason it would be included in the upgrade. The satellite wireing also differs - that was acknowleged in the post - but there is absolutely no technical reason why the satellites could not be connected with their existing wires. No new problems would result (functionally the 4.1 sats are identical with respect to their electronics and drivers, the v.2-400 sats differ only in their crossovers). The only problems that would occur would be those that might already exist with the original cables but, as indicated, I think most upgraders would be comfortable with that - and a seperate wire upgrade is always an option. quote: if you sold your 4.1 on the net, eg eBay, and considered how much you would spend on the "upgrade" you might be able to afford 5.1's. I agree that selling the old system and then using that money for a new 5.1 may be a very good option for many who want to go to 5.1. Recently even the v.2-400s seem to be going for nearly their original price. That would be a matter of personal preference and would depend on the actual cost of the proposed upgrade. quote: The reason it would cost more is that they would need a totally different assembly line, new boxes built, new specs, it would just be too much for a product that many ppl would probably not buy, just a sselective few. what ppl buying such systems like the promedias should do is realize that things improve. and in good companies, they listen to their customers and do waht they say... you can not get mad at klipsch for just answering our prayeres for a 4.1 system improvement and then the 5.1 system. we ask for a Digital Decoder... what are we getting? A digital decoder. Klipsch delivers... Give amy some slack Yes, there would be costs related to assembling and packaging a new product, but again I find it hard to believe that these would not only offset but also surpass the cost of the four satellites. True, there would have to be sufficient demand for such a product. Whether this would amount to a select few is an open question; certainly there are is a large installed base of v.2-400s out there, so there would seem to be the potential for a substantial demand. Nobody here is mad or claiming that Klipsch does not listen (if I felt they didn't listen, I wouldn't be spending the time making the suggestion). Nor do I think it is the case that ProMedia buyers do not realize or appreciate that technology improves. I believe they do, but where there is sufficient demand and it is technically possible (as is the case here) upgrades can be wonderful thing for both the manufacturer and the product owner. And one more thing: I'm not picking on Amy (everyone knows that Amy rules! ).

quote: It would cost more to do this than purchasing a new system. Just to clarify: are you saying that selling the 5.1 without the 4 satellites (my proposed upgrade package) would actually cost more than a complete system? If so, how could this be? I understand that there is shipping and handling to consider, but the shipping would be less than the full 5.1 (minus the weight of the satellites), and this would probably be true of packaging as well (since the upgrade would likely be brown boxed). Even in the worst case of shipping and packaging being equal to the 5.1, there would be the difference in the cost of the satellites (however small a portion of the total cost this may be). Now if what you are saying is combined cost of the old system and an upgrade package would be higher, that's another story. Nevertheless, those who already own perfecty good 4.1 or v.2-400 satellites and want to migrate to 5.1 may be find it a lot easier to justify the cost of an upgrade than that of a new system.

quote: I really doubt this can be done because of all the changes made to the sub/sats/control pod (the 4.1s/2.1s have a preamp in the control pod, the 5.1s won't)...the cost of getting an "upgrade package" would most likely be the cost of the 5.1 system itself because you'd have to buy all the parts! I understand your point Amy, but since the satellites appear to be indentical except for their wires and the spring clip connections a 5.1 upgrade would be very simple. Here's what I'm thinking: The upgrade kit would consist of 1) the new sub, 2) the new control pod, 3) the new center, and 4) the necessary cables/wires to connect these items. Simply connect the old satellites with their original wires(after removing the old control pod, of course) and you have a 5.1 system! Yes, the upgrade would differ from the new 5.1 with respect to the satellite wires and their connections to the satellites, but I think virtually all potential upgraders would be more than happy to live with this. Alternatively upgraded satellite wires (with mini jacks) could be included, but I think this would be better kept as a seperate upgrade package for anyone who wants to replace older ProMedia wires (whether they are upgrading to 5.1 or not). The beauty of the above type of upgrade is that it would work with either the v.2-400 or the 4.1. Sure, it wouldn't be cheap - but presumably the cost would represent a significant savings as compared to a new 5.1 system, since you're eliminating the sats and their wires.

Keep in mind that unless you were able to audition the speakers in a sound room you will likely have somewhat different impressions of these sets at home in a smaller area. Up to a point most speakers tend to sound better with increasing volume. The ProMedias do, however, distinguish themselves from the majority of multimedia speakers at extreme volumes. Few can go as loud, and most that can approach the same level distort long before they get there. The sheer power is truly astounding: I keep my 4.1 subwoofer dial at about 9 oclock (roughly 20%) and the Windows volume at 25%, and I start getting requests to turn it down when the Main Volume dial hits 8 or 9 oclock (about 10-20%), depending on the sound source! This is likely to be highlighted on a large, open, display floor, but ends up being of little practical significance in setting such as mine, where a 50% main volume setting literally blows people away at the opposite end of the house! What you are unlikely to pick up on an open display floor is that the ProMedias also scale extremely well at low volumes, so that the bass remains in balance with the mids and highs. With many multimedia systems the bass either becomes overwhelming or it gets overwhelmed at lower listening levels, and you need to adjust the subwoofer volume (if available) or play with an equalizer of some sort. While I enjoy cranking the volume from time to time, most of the time Im listening to music at lower volumes, and Im very happy with my 4.1s performance. This is not to say anything one way or the other about the Monsoons (which I have not heard I imagine they are excellent performers), but just to say that while the ProMedias certainly kick *** at high volumes, they are also excellent at low volumes in a typical home/office setting.

Yes, by all means get as much information as you can and be careful. I do know that he delivers on the merchandise - and will even add an additional freebie if he isn't able to do so in a timely manner. The question is whether he will deliver on the rebate months down the road. I would also be concerned about whether he is an authorized dealer. Anyone with more info and/or experiences?

There's a Doctor Rebate character on eBay that has been selling ProMedia 4.1s with a huge rebate. I don't know if he is an authorized retailer. If you don't mind putting a lot of money up front and waiting a few months for the rebate the final cost is about half of what you would pay anywhere else, and I believe he throws in a few freebies to sweeten the deal. Might be an option to consider if optimizing the "bang for the buck" is going to be a major concern.

The saying to which deaf guy refers is in MarkMs review of the ProMedia V.2-400 (and perhaps his ProMedia vs. Crossfire review as well) at 3dss.com. Heres a portion: ----- Quote: In doing my research for our ProMedia - Crossfire article, I came across a great quote that I will paraphrase to sum this section up - that is "one persons clarity is someone elses harshness". That is, while there clearly is right and wrong when it come to acoustic accuracy but there is no right and wrong when it comes to taste ----- Some people do find the ProMedias MicroTractrix Horns harsh, especially during the initial break-in period. Perhaps the up-front & center sound that these help produce is the reason for your perception that the highs were more exceptional on the Monsoons, because technically the Monsoons have a significant roll off in the upper frequencies as compared to the ProMedias (due to the latter having separate tweeters). I am surprised that you would have a similar perception with regard to the midrange, unless the ProMedia set you auditioned was one of the original V.2-400s (which were somewhat lacking in the midrange). This is quite possible; I have noticed that a number of stores continue to have a V.2-400 as their display model. If this was the case I would recommend giving one of the new ProMedia models an audition, because they are much more musical than the original. One other technical point worth mentioning is that the ProMedias are exceptional with regard to the crossover between the sub and sats (behaving like much larger speakers in this respect see the 3dss ProMedia 2.1 review for details), whereas the Monsoons have a relatively high crossover. This tends to muddy up stereo and positional effects (and consequently the sound stage) in about the 100-250 hz range, but is partially offset by the fact that the Monsoon flat panel technology excels in this respect above about 250 hz. In his ProMedia 2.1 review MarkM points out that although the sub-sat crossover is impressive from the above standpoint, it does produce a different sound that some may not like. So again, it comes down to personal preference. Just make sure you have heard a current ProMedia. Im sure youll be very happy with either set.

I guess Ill take the above as a form of acknowledgement that a power rating of the 4.1 based on nominal speaker impedances, as would be done on a separate hi-fi amplifier by an independent party such as Sound and Vision, would be significantly less than 400 watts. So lets address the obvious question: Assuming for the moment that a rating based on nominal impedances has not been done (which seems a bit of a stretch IMO), and since this is a voltage limited system (as you state above), what would you estimate the power rating to be using the nominal impedance of 4 ohms for the satellites and 8 ohms (or whatever the nominal impedance is) for the sub? In light of the recent announcement, please also estimate the power rating for the new 5.1 in the same manner. No, this isnt going to provide the elusive direct comparison, which would involve doing the actual measurements, but it will take us a lot closer to that goal. One loose end: the question about the rumored change in the 4.1 sub (as compared to the v.2-400) was based on various claims of acoustical differences. Are they identical or different with respect to their acoustics? If they do differ, what was changed?

Nor would you find much difference in the output between the 4.1 and the 80 watts RMS VideoLogic Crossfire, which actually goes slightly louder, but that's not really the point. No doubt the 400 Watts RMS rating is wonderful from a marketing perspective, and in terms of bragging rights as well, but it also begs the question of what exactly you mean by 400 watts (which is in essence one of the two original questions in this thread). Yes, I did buy the 4.1 for the reasons you mentioned, among others, and I consider them all to be very good reasons for doing so. While I appreciate the recommendation, I'm here for answers to technical questions that you invited from over at 3dss. With regard to how to say the above with numbers, it would seem that the Klipsch marketing team concluded you do so with an apples to oranges RMS rating.

quote: Posted by MarkM: Is the impedance ratings of the satellie test an exact match to the combined satellites impedance? When I look at the tests that Sound and Vision using on the amplifiers it's 4 and 8 to generally match the common impedance ratings of the hi-fi speaker system, hence my question. quote: Posted by Dan F: We rated this amplifier so that it relates more to separate/ hi-fi amplifiers. As you may know, home hi-fi amps are often rated with different standard loads. The impedence of a loudspeaker is a variable with frequency, so you have to pick a resistive value to go with. We picked these values because they were reasonable test cases for the amp. quote: Posted by Dan F: Again, the amplifier is rated separately from the speakers, (mostly because it is derived from the home theater side of the business). Thus, the resistance we use to test the amplifier is not necessarily the same as the speaker impedence. Since there is no standard "power test speaker"; it is necessary to specify a test resistor. We use the lowest specified resistance because, quite simply, that's what the amp is capable of driving. Maybe it's just me, but something doesn't seem to be adding up here. Based on Mark's comment, it would seem that a fair comparison to "separate/ hi-fi amplifiers" would involve using nominal speaker impedances rather than the lowest specified resistance. Perhaps there is no 'standard "power test speaker"', but there are standard nominal impedances that can provide apples to apples comparisons. What this sounds like is Klipsch picked test values that would give impressive RMS numbers. This is not to downplay the quality of the pros (I love mine), but just to say that Klipsch's 400 watts RMS doesn't seem to be equivalent to Sound and Vision's 400 watts RMS.

So how does this relate to the real world? Wouldn't loads of 8 ohm (for the sub) and 4*6 ohm (for the sats) give a more realistic measurement, or am I missing something? Also, is there any truth to the rumor that the 4.1 sub is different from the v.2-400 sub? Thanks.