StephenM

As far as speakers go, if you absolutely want a 5.1 system on a shoestring budget, this system would be pretty hard to beat for the money asked without delving into the used market: http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Classic-Theater-System-Black/dp/B001202C44 For the retail price of a pair of RB-51s, I don't believe you can do much better.

I did verify before I bought my own receiver from A4L that they are an authorized refurb Onkyo dealer on Onkyo's website.

For what its worth: http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/ONKTXSR508/Onkyo/TX-SR508-7.1-Channel-3-D-Ready-Home-Theater-Receiver/1.html I also second the notion of passing on 7.1

It's a valid reason. Who doesn't like good looking, solid feeling equipment over cheap throwaway stuff? Fair enough; I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you're after the best possible sound, your money is probably better saved for a pair of Klipschorns than fooling around with the differences between a very very good dac and what may be a very very very good dac. At least in my opinion. Going back to this statement though: Just keep in mind, we're talking about a 7 dollar chip here. http://www.analog.com/en/digital-to-analog-converters/audio-da-converters/ad1955/products/product.html

You can always ask Emotiva if it is a significant upgrade over the DACs already in the UMC-1, but for some reason, I'd seriously doubt it. If they could have significantly improved the UMC-1 for the cost of a DAC chip, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't have done so.

FWIW, I was curious about the impedance dips of my RF-5s, e-mailed Klipsch customer service, and was advised that their minimum impedance was 4 ohms around 200Hz. While not exactly the same as your RF-3s, given the shared woofers, one might expect that to be a decent guideline for you as well.

Just to be clear, this is the only thing that justifies the purchase of the ERC. If you're looking for better sound quality, your money is far better spent on better source material and speakers. I can't say I'd bother with this idea either. The DACs on your processor are just fine. And again, your money is far better spent on better source material and speakers if you want significant audible gains. Don't get me wrong, RF-5s are nice (I should know), but a pair of La Scalas and some good CDs will walk all over RF-5s playing low bit MP3s through a high end DAC.

If it were my money I'd "tough it out". I can understand the desire for the Emotiva, but I can't see any reason to blow the cash on any old player when it won't yield any gains beyond what you've already got.

Nice eye and ear candy to be sure. Interested to hear your thoughts on their sonic performance.

If my cabinet could have held it, I'd have probably gotten it instead of the 707... http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/ONKTXNR1007/Onkyo/TX-NR1007-THX-Ultra2-Plus-135-watts-Channel-9.2-Network-Receiver/1.html

A good starting point would be stands that place the tweeters of the RB-51s at ear height, about 2 feet from the back wall, with a bit of toe in to the listening position. Also, it is generally a good idea to be reasonably far away from side walls as well (say 2-3 foot minimum).

Let me reword your statement a bit: regardless of how much clean power an amplifier claims to have into an 8 ohm load, you need to know whether the amplifier can deliver adequate power into low impedance loads while remaining stable. An amplifier that cannot cleanly deliver power into a 2-3 ohm load may have trouble with your speakers, and it will be audible. Unfortunately, the article doesn't exactly seem to be written by an expert in the field of audio equipment (not that I claim to be one myself by any means). A few shining examples: Receivers and amps are rated in watts because they are the standard unit of power. The FTC stepped in and mandated certain conditions of how manufacturers listed their products output because back then some would put "50 watts" or "100 watts" without any sort of qualification as to how that figure was reached. To my knowledge, that was never a secret... Last I checked, watts are the standard unit of measurement of power, and in electrical circuits are directly related to the current/amperage. Sony isn't entirely incorrect. Receivers are designed to have all channels active, but they aren't designed to have all channels driven to the max all at once. It simply doesn't happen with real world program material, and would tend to constitute abuse, which most receivers would rightly protect themselves and the connected speakers from to prevent damage. It is also worth nothing that this is why the Onkyo tests so low: the 52wpc figure is after the limiter kicked in. Also worth noting: Onkyo receivers do only rate their power with 2 channels driven, even the current flagship NR5008 at 145WPC. Of course said amplifier is THX Ultra II rated, and thus guaranteed to deliver an 18 ampere peak while being stable down to 3.2 ohms, hence the earlier recommendation for a THX Ultra II rated receiver.

Sounds like some bush league IT management in the recording industry....

To preface, this is to the best of my knowledge: SNR is a useful measurement, and any figure better than 80dB can be considered "good". That said, SNR is only one aspect of performance that any halfway decent amplifier should have down pat. IMO, what separates the men from the boys in amplification is finding an amplifier that is effective in driving loads beyond an 8 ohm resistor. Unfortunately, saying an amplifier is rated 100 watts into a purely resistive 8 ohm load 20Hz-20kHz with under 0.1% distortion tells you precious little about how it will handle a speaker that presents a highly reactive low impedance load. Unfortunately, there are few bench tests that will tell you about this kind of performance (I think the Power Cube test over at The Audio Critic was useful, although they're basically dead). Further confounding the problem is that precious few speaker manufacturers bother to advertise anything about the load their speakers present beyond saying they are 8 ohm nominal. Thus, one can conclude the best way to choose an amplifier is to listen to them as they are hooked up to your speakers.

It most certainly impacts sound quality as well as the longevity of the equipment. An amplifier that isn't designed to deal with low impedance loads will still put out sound, but it will do so with much higher distortion than an amplifier made for the job. Moreover, the low end amplifier will likely run much hotter than it was meant to, and is liable to go into protection mode/clipping.

See: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/129365.aspx

It may make sense to have a center channel, although how much of a difference it makes largely depends on the way you have your speakers and the listening area set up. Specifically, if your main speakers are too widely spaced or if you listen outside the sweet spot, you should hear improved performance.

For curiousity sake, I actually did glance over the paper. I did find one curious tidbit in there though: "Frequency response was almost omitted from this consideration because it rates about last in importance.Yet, more effort is spent to gain "flat" frequency response than in optimizing other values". Meanwhile you have someone like Floyd Toole who believes frequency response to be the "single most important technical specification of audio components". My thought: it is no wonder that there are many (significantly) differing loudspeaker designs when there is no agreement as to what is important in designing a loudspeaker, even apparently among such fine minds as Toole and Klipsch.

I don't want to brag, I don't want to boast, so I'll just tell you I like toast. YEAH TOAST!!!! Sorry, first thing that popped into my head.

Any thoughts on this puppy? http://www.amazon.com/Behringer-CX2310-Stereo-Frequency-Crossover/dp/B0002Z82LM PS: Skibum, thanks for the offer, but I'm not in a position to make a move yet. Just planning for where I'd like to take this system.

With a bit of looking, would this work as I'd intend? http://store.hlabs.com/pk4/store.pl?section=9 Low pass obviously. I'd probably do 50Hz since the RF-5s extend down reasonably well.

Good afternoon folks, As some may have seen, I was aiming to sell my SVS PB10 NSD subwoofer. However,with offers far less than I'm interested in accepting, I'm getting much less inclined to let it go. Unfortunately, this tends to conflict with my long term hopes and dreams for my system. I'm not necessarily opposed to having a subwoofer, as they bring obvious advantages to the system. However, I'm aiming to ditch my surround sound receiver at some point and run with a two channel receiver or integrated amplifier. Unfortunately, the SVS has no built in crossover... So I'm hoping someone might be able to point me in the direction of something reasonably affordable (say $100 or under) in the way of an external model.

I'll second Microsoft Security Essentials. It has a relatively small footprint, it's easy to set up and use, and the price is right. Combined with Windows inbuilt firewall, UAC, and a bit of common sense when surfing the web and checking your emails, you'll be good to go. I'll also pimp Adblock Plus as a good way to cut down on potentially malicious web garbage, or if you want to go a little more hardcore, flashblock.

I guess you could say I get caught up in the technical details a bit. In any case, I'll actually admit to being intrigued by the A6: the price is right and it would at least appear to be something worth giving a listen. Unfortunately, Pioneer doesn't seem interested in selling it in my area...

Hi Jim, Thanks for your response! I guess my question is more a matter of how much improvement is possible before its more academic than audible. I point to the HK because it has been bench tested by a seemingly competent engineer at Audioholics, but the same could more than likely apply to your Pioneer. They might not measure as quiet as a Bryston or Levinson or McIntosh at many times the cost, but within their envelope of performance, how likely are you to hear a difference? Can you hear an SNR of 100dB vs 80dB (Gene at Audioholics mentions 60dB as being acceptable, whereas the HK measured at 80dB)? How about a crosstalk of 105dB vs 90dB(greater than 60dB being noted as inaudible by human ears)? Will my bass really tighten up and go deeper if I ditch my cheapo receiver and step into a Bryston? Ultimately I'd like to get more time listening to "better" products (which is its own challenge anymore), but I don't hold much hope that they will rock my world any better than my current HK receiver. Color me a skeptic I guess.