rgdawsonco

You had mentioned experience building audio cables, which I assumed to mean cables that the actual audio signal travels on. This review was talking about perceived audio improvements by just changing the AC cable alone. I was not taking issue with audio signal cables, just the power cable which is all the reviewer changed w.r.t his perceived improvements. I didn't know if you were including AC power cords in your comments as something that should be tried, thus the question mark. As for me, an AC power cord could not possibly improve the sound unless you are comparing to a seriously defective cord. Seriously, relative humidity, barometric pressure, and daily fluctuation in your own mood and hearing contribute more to variations in sound you perceive from one day to the next. In any case, I was not hoping to start yet another debate on audio cables. I just thought this one was funny because it was an AC power cord and the language used to describe the sonic improvements amused me.

Signal cables are one thing, but an AC cable?

This made me laugh and I thought I would share with the crowd here. I was browsing around on Stereophile's web site and came across a review of cables, in particular, an AC power cord and read this: ... That my next step should be to replace the AC cord of the Shindo Haut-Brion power amplifier—the amp in use at the time—was obvious, but utterly lacking in the excitement of anticipation: Since upgrading the preamp's power cord produced so modest a change, I assumed that performing the same swap on the next component downstream would produce an even subtler change, if any. Yet when we made the swap and began listening, I heard a difference so startlingly apparent that I laughed aloud—as did Danny Labrecque, whom I then chided for committing the unpardonable sin of messing with my head (though the verb I used was not messing). With the Luna Orange cord feeding my Haut-Brion, it was as if I'd found, somewhere in my system, a theretofore undiscovered knob labeled Vividness, and had goosed it up a couple clicks. Where to begin? RCA's uncharacteristically dry and very direct-sounding recording of violinist Vittorio Emanuele and the Società Corelli performing Vivaldi's The Four Seasons (LP, RCA Living Stereo LSC-2424) became even more direct, more corporeal, and altogether more realistic, with increases in instrumental color saturation and texture, and seeming expansions of dynamic shadings and tactile expressiveness. In the "Frost Scene" of Purcell's King Arthur, in the recording with Anthony Lewis conducting the St. Anthony Singers and the Philomusica of London (2 LPs, L'Oiseau-Lyre SOL-60008/9), the Cold Genius's shivering, and that of the accompanying strings, in the aria "What power art thou?" was more forceful and effective—if not for the word's negative connotation, which has no place here, I would say it was exaggerated—and the soloist's voice (footnote 3) seemed uncannily louder, and more distinct from its surroundings. ... http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-164-page-2#0HBsZ0UgP7SukGdO.97 So. This is hilarious to me. I especially love the line "...became even more direct, more corporeal, and altogether more realistic, with increases in instrumental color saturation and texture, and seeming expansions of dynamic shadings and tactile expressiveness." I'm an electrical engineer, so I have no clue what this means, other than sounding cool. Who knew a few feet of expensive power cable (plugged into an outlet, inline with god knows what wiring back to the power company) could have such a dramatic effect? LOL.

I considered the 5200W and went the 6200W, since I need HDCP 2.2. Ultra High Def needs HDCP 2.2 and my new Dish Hopper needs HDCP 2.2 to support its 4K capability. The 5200W is a nice receiver, but there is a reason it is cheaper due to lack of HDCP 2.2. I'd pick 4200 or 6200 if you will ever want 4K/UHD.

I don't really know what voicing means. They probably test them with grills off. I've tried, but I just can't listen to speakers without their clothes on. Find it distracting, like watching a singer sing naked, haha. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I hear ya. And it IS about making a profit. But Chevy still has the Corvette, but the Corvette actually is a great value, whereas I could not say the Palladiums are a great value, just great. It's a halo product. Oh well, glad I got mine.

I posted some pics of mine and some initial impressions here: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/162963-new-palladiums-in-the-house-picsresults/?p=2000070 Bottom line: I love the Palladiums! I could not be more satisfied. My RT-10D sub is still broke, but a found a place that fixed it for $180 and I am expecting the parts back in a few days. So I am just using a spare SW-311 until my RT-10D is ready. I may try using both in a dual sub setup, as the RT-10D and SW-311 are fairly similar within limits. I almost decided to get the Palladium sub or an SVS sub, but with all the money I've spent lately and a wedding to pay for next month, I'm holding off and making do with what I have. I just think the Palladiums are awesome. I hope, hope, hope that Klipsch is not abandoning this market segment and will have a followup to the Palladium line. But I am probably set for life now.

Are you referring to your P-37's being fatiguing? I am loving mine. Prior to the P-37s, I had KLF-20's (stock). I have a wall about 3 feet behind the listening position and reflections off that wall were a problem I might describe a fatiguing. I put a couple sound absorbing panels and it helped me a lot. The problem was improved with the KLF's and later, when I switched to the P-37's, they are not fatiguing to me (in my room) at all. Way better than the KLF's in every respect. I also use the Audessey reference calibration which attenuates the highs a bit as well. This combination is working well for me.

I like acoustic guitar. And I like to play it (through my stereo) louder than any real acoustic guitar could ever play. Is that accurate? Heck no. No acoustic guitar could sound that way that loud. But do I like it? Heck yeah.

This is true. And I have this ongoing dilemma with Audessey Room correction myself. I wish I could tweak the results but I can't. It's all or nothing and I like certain things with it and certain things without it. As for which is "accurate", I don't know. Without it, I know the results in my room could be accurate coming out of the speakers, but by the time it gets to my ears and the room has imparted its own sound on it, the results I hear are no longer "accurate" if accurate means sounding like the original sounded in the room it was played in. My room has changed it. With it (Audessey), the sound is also not "accurate" if accurate means sounding like the same instruments played in my room. Audessey has changed it. What is "accurate" then? I have no idea. In my case, the differences are small and I like it both ways, but I can't say, even theoretically, which is more "accurate".

Thanks for posting this, I enjoyed it. When I first started getting serious about this hobby, I had this engineer friend who relayed a story to me that I have never forgotten. He and a friend were listening to a live piano recital. The other guy leaned over and said, "My stereo sounds better." I had to think about that. I knew he was right. I know I can take my guitar and play in one room and it sounds one way. I can go sit in another room and it sounds different. Which is right? I have played a lot with Audessey room correction in my system and I generally like it. However, it is hard to argue that the sound coming out after room correction is applied is "accurate". After all, if I was playing my guitar in that room, then the room would be part of the sound and therefore "accurate" for that room. So if I wanted a guitar coming out of my speakers to sound like a guitar being played in that room, then I would say Audessey room correction is not accurate. What this article teaches me is that there really is no such thing as perfect. In the end, go with what you like best. It is my opinion that Klipsch Heritage speakers have developed such a loyal and loving following, not because they are necessarily "accurate" but because they are so darn pleasing. Often better than the real thing.

What he said! The terms large and small have turned out to be unfortunate. I think it would have been better to terminology like derrickdj1 uses. Like Bass mgt On/Off because that's what it means.

Well, I received word my RT-10D is not fixable. So now I am in market for a new sub and I want to locate it in the same place. So, per your good advice, I am considering the PC12-plus and the PC13-Ultra. From what I gather, they are very similar. The Ultra is $500 more, 8.5 " taller, and has about double the output. I like the PC12 being shorter, and I am betting it wold be "enough". Though the room is large, I think, effectively, this is a smaller room application given how close the listener is to the fronts and especially the sub, and the fact that the sub is in a corner. Given that you liked it with your Palladiums and given it has better performance than the RT-10D, which is saying something, I think I'll go with the PC12. When I get back in town, I'll need to measure to make sure I have room vertically. I could go with the Ultra if that is needed, but I'm guessing the PC12 will be more than enough.

I have a RT-10D that has a ... well ... the opposite of a dent. It's as if it was dented from the inside. Had it for years and never noticed it before. It is very slight. But no way I could have done it because I have never had the woofers removed. I suppose it could have been delivered that way. It was a floor model when I bought it. But the only way to dent it from the inside would be to remove the woofer, which to my knowledge has never been done. Or maybe it could have gotten dented from the outside and through playing, the dent popped from an "inny" to an "outy". Beats me, haha.

How are you going to mount the Palladium center with the TV, since it is curved, I suppose you'll have to something different.

WOW…..you have good eyes, I didn't notice it, but you're right, I only have the Klipsch lettering. I'll look in the box. If not, I'll get a nice badge or something. I must confess I am in same boat. My box for my center was punctured when it arrived. So I unboxed it while the delivery guy was standing in the door. I nervously pulled the sock off. I saw no damage whatsoever, but there was this piece of tape stuck to the sock. Later, when I was putting all the packing material away I noticed the other speakers had tape over the logos. That's when it dawned on me what that tape was. I found it and sure enough, in the crinkled tape was a crinkled chevron. It had come off with the tape. So I called Klipsch and told them to send me a chevron decal. The man was doubtful it could be done but promised to email me.

Captorman, are you missing the Klipsch chevron that should be under the Klipsch logo? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is spring break!! Haha! Yah they look good topless. Even better totally nude.

I had KLF-20's, KLF-C7 (center) and KSP-6 surrounds before. They were great, but the Palladiums are clearly (no pun intended) better. As for the surrounds... Due to the layout of my room, I have made a compromise in the way I have mounted them. I have mounted them on the rear wall, resulting in a 120-degree angle toward the back. Dolby recommends 90 (directly to side)-110 (slight to the rear). The KSP-6's are a triangular design where in my case gives me a woofer and tweeter pointed roughly pointed towards the listener. The Palladium surrounds have woofers pointed forward and tweeters pointed to the sides. So in my case, the way I have them mounted, I have only tweeters pointed at the listener and the woofers pointed substantially off-axis from the listener, potentially making the surrounds too bright. For that reason I almost didn't buy the surrounds, but decided "what the hell, for once in my life I'm gonna get the whole dang matching package, since I might not be able to get them later." The Palladium surrounds are great and I am glad I got them. Its working pretty darn well, and I like them better (Audessey helps balance them out in my situation). The P-17B are the same price and depending on the room and the situation, might be a better choice, but those would not work for my situation. You definitely should get the matching center. Oh yah, I wanna see a picture of your P-39F setup.

I have this stand with a Palladium Center on it that weighs about double the rated weight of the stand. I'm not totally comfortable with that, so, therefore, I too, am looking for a new center stand, and I, like you, have been able to find nothing at 22" height other than the Sanus. That said, the Sanus is a decent stand. rgdawsonco, are you using the pegs that came with the stand to tilt the speaker? If so, how do you keep it from sliding off? The stand comes with rubber tipped bolts that allow the front to be tipped up. The back has rubber grommets. I have used it prior for the KLF-C7, and now for the P-27C. I have not had any slipping issues in either case. But the Palladium is curved, so I would have to use the pegs even if I did not tilt it up. With the P, I can adjust the amount of tilt by setting the speaker fore and aft.

I have this stand with a Palladium Center on it that weighs about double the rated weight of the stand. I'm not totally comfortable with that, so, therefore, I too, am looking for a new center stand, and I, like you, have been able to find nothing at 22" height other than the Sanus. That said, the Sanus is a decent stand.

OK, I can answer this now, 1. Palladium P-37F 2. KLF-20 3. Forte II

I was thinking about this. I still have not heard back on whether my RT-10D can be fixed, so I have been thinking about a replacement if it cannot be fixed. And I was looking at the SVS and HSU sites about the time you posted this. Btw, HSU recommends the corner and close to the listening position, exactly where my RT-10D was, and will likely continue to locate my sub there. I have tried the front, but I have gotten best result in the corner just behind the couch as-is and I don't want to run another cable to the front, anyway. So space is an issue and I think the SVS PC-12 might fit the bill if I have to get a new one. It is high on the list. But if my RT-10D is easily (i.e. cheaply) fixable, I'll try that first. On another note, The P-27S surrounds come with port plugs and I forgot all about them and left them in. I'm thinking I should take those out. Any thoughts?

I have had many Denon's, currently have the X6200. I drove my KLF-20s with the X4000 and thought it was an excellent match for the Klipsch. I honestly don't hear differences in amps. But Audessey XT has done well for me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

After letting the RP450C break in a bit more and experimenting with settings it is sounding a lot better. I did run the MCACC pro that's on my receiver which not only helped the center but made everything sound a lot better. Is that similar to Audessey? Is that another brand's room calibration system? I would definitely be willing to try it if possible. I think I'm probably just going to end up sticking with this one because the guy that had the other center on craigslist has for some reason just stopped responding so I'm not sure if perhaps he sold it to someone else or what happened there. If I happen to see a RC-64ii for a good price I may grab it and give it a shot. Yes, Audessey is a version of room correction that is built into Denon receivers. I find it very helpful technology.