StephenM

1. In terms of a large vs small rear speaker, the rear speaker DOES need sufficient output capabilities to meet any potential peaks that will be asked of it. If you're listening at full reference level, that means you need a speaker capable of 105dB of output at the listening position, same as the fronts. You cannot expect a small speaker like a Quintet to handle such output; on the other hand, a relatively small speaker like the P-27S (small in comparison with the floorstanding models in the Palladium line at least) most certainly can deal with those output levels when mated with a subwoofer. 2. As far as surrounds being identical to the fronts, it's all up to what you prefer in the end. FWIW though, THX mandates a dipole speaker for the surround channels, as this provides a more enveloping sound than a conventional monopole could achieve, and in their research, most people preferred the dipole surrounds. If I had unlimited funds, I'd probably just build a properly treated and isolated theater room, and run with the Klipsch THX Ultra 2 system (which obviously does not use the same speakers all around). Maybe just for fun, I'd have a separate (also properly treated and isolated) music room with Jubilees and a couple JTR Orbit Shifters.

In this particular case, most certainly not. The only problem is that the XO parts do not appear to be fancy enough. There is no mention of any actual sonic problem, which is why I advise to proceed with caution. I've tried messing with speakers in the past, and I've had a little success (with help from an engineer with considerable insight on the speaker in question) and I've been burned for trying to mess with one of the best (IMO anyway) speakers I've heard. These days, I prefer to approach things from a scientific/engineering minded standpoint to avoid such mistakes. I can respect that you use your ears to tune your speakers to your preference, but it might not be a great idea to suggest to a new member with an unknown level of talent for tinkering with speakers to brace away.

Gotta love the efficiency of Klipsch speakers. I did a little calc a while back for how much power I'd need with my listening requirements (-20dB from reference, ie peaks on each satellite channel of up to 85dB, average levels of 65dB) with my completed system (RF-5s: 99dB w/ 2.83V, 8.5 feet from MLP, RC-3II: 97dB w/ 2.83V, 8 feet from MLP, RF-15: 96dB w/ 2.83V, 7 feet from MLP; assuming all are 4 ohm nominal). Even if all 5 channels peaked at once at -20dB from reference (the limit of "comfortably loud" to me at least), I'd need 3.3 watts into 4 ohms, and 2 amperes worth of current for all 5 channels combined. For -10dB (ie considerably louder than I personally desire to listen), that figure goes up to 33 watts and 6.4 amperes. You don't exactly need kilowatt monoblocks to produce those levels, although I certainly wouldn't turn them down if someone gave them to me [].

Out of curiosity moray, do you run any measurements before and after your modifications to verify the problems exist (significant panel flex) and that the result is up to snuff (not significantly impacting low end response)? Any tips as to how you'd go about effectively bracing a Heresy without significantly reducing box volume?

While I like an inert cabinet as much as the next guy, won't altering the box volume by adding lots of bracing potentially introduce new problems?

+1. FWIW, I would caution against this project. It's one thing to modify a speaker after you've identified a problem, worked out a fix (while trying to minimize unintended consequences of said fix...), implement the fix, and then hopefully measure the results, thus verifying the efficacy of the fix. It's a whole different animal to replace all the crossover components because they look cheap...

It seems like a fair assumption, although size doesn't necessarily mean much: http://www.stereophile.com/content/klipsch-palladium-p-39f-loudspeaker-measurements http://www.stereophile.com/content/klipsch-palladium-p-17b-loudspeaker-measurements Clearly, the P-39F is considerably larger than the P-17B, yet the impedance dips are fairly comparable. Presumably they figure if you're buying a $4000 pair of speakers, you probably won't be using them with a $300 receiver.

I'm hoping Ricci at Audioholics reviews one so we can get a better idea of how it compares. His results also end up at http://www.data-bass.com for a slightly larger group to compare with, including the Empire.

How are the subwoofers placed? When you tested the SW310 by itself, did you move it to where the Ultracube 12 was located?

I hope so. With any luck, this will be my last system related purchase for a while, aside from a hole saw to "improve" my cabinet.

To expound on this: Audyssey measures the actual -3dB rolloff of the speakers in the room, and sets the crossover accordingly. By lowering the XO point from what Audyssey measures, you will have a dip in the response. Moreover, Audyssey will not apply any correction to frequencies below the measured 3dB point.

Ouch, sorry about that. Even if they're getting replaced, you really just hate to see something so beautiful so badly damaged by carelessness.

Interestingly enough, as fate would have it, I'll be having some RF-15s in the near future as well. I'll be using them as surrounds as well for my setup. There's little question they'll be a useful upgrade from what I'm currently using: if their rated sensitivity is as accurate as that of my front array, they'll be a full 12dB more sensitive than my current surrounds, which to be fair were just a stopgap anyway.

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/204klipsch/index.html http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/bookshelf/speaker-face-off-iv Not aware of much on the RF-15.

Yes, Audyssey does make phase adjustments to integrate the sub. More dB? Not unless the sub was out of steam. Even then, I'm not sure the RF-7s would be able to contribute much more, especially in the deep bass. Less localized? Not if the sub is set up properly. More even response? Multiple subs, when you take the time to set them up properly and since they're playing the same material, can even out frequency response in room. A pair of towers placed flanking a TV? I'd expect the odds are less in your favor.

What you paid is ultimately irrelevant. We can only compare MSRP to MSRP. OK, the RB-75 back in 2003 retailed for $1200, and that only came with an 8" woofer, not a 10". For such a contraption today, accounting for inflation and the larger woofer, $1500 wouldn't be particularly unreasonable, and not that far off from the $1700 price I gave for the Heresies in my original reckoning. That and the amplification and front end. ICEpower would make a lot of sense for this system, and it doesn't come cheap. A stereo pre/pro+active crossover with Audyssey XT32 and Airplay wouldn't be an inexpensive proposition either. Conversely, the system could be run by something more akin to the Denon receiver in Cornfed's example. As I said before, time will tell. We could have something akin to the BeoLab5 ($16000, a rather advanced active speaker with 15" subs and 2500 watts of ICEpower on tap) or an RF-7 being driven by a Denon receiver.

Since a pair of RF-7ii is $3200, does that really change the overall equation significantly in favor of saying that the console is a horrible value? I only said Heresies as its the closest thing Klipsch has to a premium bookshelf at the moment without going to the Palladium line.

Time will tell, but I wouldn't count it as a bad value just yet. The potential certainly exists for them to offer a compelling (if niche) product at that price. Besides, its still less expensive than some speaker wire, and the speaker wire is already included in the console!

This is meant to be a statement product, and really in that realm the price seems rather reasonable. Imagine a pair of Heresies ($1700) backed by a KW-120 THX ($1500 + amplification), with a separate high end amplifier channel for each driver (say 4x $800 for some Wyred4Sound mono ICE amps rated for 250 watts each plus +$1500 for the Klipsch THX Sub amp). At this point, you're already at 7900, and you have yet to account for the modern preamp section and a finely finished American made cabinet to hold your electronics. If they can pull it off for 6 grand, and offer some other modern goodies like auto-calibration, that'd be pretty impressive to me.

From the article: Versatile inputs, including HDMI, optical and USB, provide numerous sound connection options no matter the preferred media source.

Looks neat. I wonder how it sounds compared to a regular 2.1 system.

If you aren't careful, it is possible that you could damage your receiver, although it may just go into protection mode and shut down. I wouldn't recommend pushing the limits to see what happens though. Short answer: yes and no. It is ultimately too much power that will damage your speakers. You aren't going to melt the voice coil of a woofer rated for 1000 watts of input power with a 10 watt amplifier that can put out a maximum of 20 watts when it clips. However, it isn't unheard of for a clipping receiver to destroy a speaker's much more delicate tweeters with excessive power. Some further reading on the subject. http://billfitzmaurice.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1886

The 609 should handle the three channels OK, even at moderately loud levels, but be mindful not to push it too hard. As far as timbre matching, the 609's Audyssey 2EQ will help with that a bit, and depending on how picky you are, you may or may not notice much difference.

Got any Klipsch speakers in your abode?

IMO, if full, rich sound is your goal, then bass should have some importance in your system. Just to be clear, no bookshelf speaker Klipsch makes, and precious few of its floorstanders can do justice to a piano. I'm not saying you should run out and buy RF-7s or a monster subwoofer, but I can guarantee there is a difference in the richness and fullness of the sound between a system that struggles to reach 40Hz and a system that can can play 25Hz with authority. http://www.psbspeakers.com/Images/Audiotopics/fChart.gif