DANGERDAN

This has come from my experience and multiple studys on sound technology but when it comes to speakers, power never sounds better just because a amplifier has more watts to provide but the technology and application that the power is delivered to the speakers does. When your looking at the amplifiers power output specifications, the only thing that it can refer to is the SPL that will be required for the speaker to produce, a speaker will only take as much power as it needs for a given ratio of volume (and frequency) it will not just receive the full power that a amp is specified for because thats not how speakers function. So when it comes to powering speakers for a given volume ratio you actually do not need a lot of power with klipsch. If someone has a actual power graph for the output of RF7's i would love to see it but im sure that the power required is no more than about 150 watts average at a full THX SPL Recording. There are important things to look for when looking at amplifiers and thats the technology used including the quality of the parts, the application of the materials used and the final builds performance with the manufacturing of the equipment. With Emotiva this is exactly what has made them such the popular company that they are because they are not like a lot of the avr manufacturers out there who just try to win people over by hyped specifications and false advertising. You also have to look for the diliver of the power as different equipment deliver power in many different ways for eg, Rotel RB-1582 has a higher damping factor than its little brother RB-1552 even though the technology used is very similar but the they were built differently for application reasons. The RB1582 has a higher current to voltage ratio than its little brother and that gives it a much better reproduction of sound along with the increased power to help with headroom, these are the things that separate other amplifiers from eachother. So in regards to your question and i hope i can help you as im not entierly familar with Emotiva equipment but as it stands the rules for what you need still apply no matter what your quest is, having the extra power can improve audio quality but imo its not because the speaker has more power because it will infact not use anything more than it is already been provided with but the extra power will put less stress on the equipment and therby reducing the distortion of sound due to having more stability in the control of the signal. BTW Hi Dennie hows the family..

In saying that does that indicate at all that we still need pre amps, with the equipment technology that we have today a lot of source devices like blu ray players, computer sound cards, external DAC's all can put out around 1v+. Would we not benifit today by removing this possible useless link in our chain of audio connections, unless the preamps are still good for something else i dont see what could be of optimal use.

roger i get ya.

Ok so a preamp with say 100ohm connected to say 10-30kohm poweramp is a preferred matched impedance ??.

Preamps were designed in their original days as a first stage amplification as all or most sources were a low line level output of around 10mv and were amplified to a more acceptable voltage of 1v+, this would ensure that the Power amp which is the second stage amplification delivers the current sufficient enough for a acceptable output. So the first stage and second stage phase were important for a sufficed power output, but this is not all that the preamp was made for, it has to also adjust the impedance to match with the power amplifier because the low level line output is not the same and can cause distortion so its important to match the signals as best as possible to avoid this. There are other things a preamp does but i dont think its relevant in this discussion as they are too minor. So impedance matching how important do you think it is ?, do you think pre amps are still needed because of this requirement or should it be nothing to worry about (from a audiophiles perspective). What is a good rule of thumb when matching impedance between equipments ?.

Errr what, i wouldnt say you would need to go bigger than a 12" unless you were wanting to go louder but other than that the 10-12" is probably the most natural way for a speaker and enclosure to reproduce sounds of 100hz and below. And how would you recommnd a 15" to go as high as 1khz, at least for a sub thats designed for sub frequencys ??. From what i know each driver size paired with component design has its own resonant frequency range and thats why floorstanders have mutliple sized drivers for each frequency spectrum it works for. Edit. I think im thinking too narrow.

Well it makes sense doesn't it, i was always a bit skeptical about the rf7's with 10" because 10-12 are usually sizes for subwoofers which are specifically designed to more naturally reproduce frequencys below the 100hz mark, so this makes more sense now id say.

Thanks for the info pite, its actually a better thing that its not as big as it states as it is better for the auditory of the sound reproduction, for me anything above 8" will result in more difficult reproduction of mid frequencys.

cheers bodday

Actually its 6" without the suspension 7" with and then 8" with the basket included, i dont mind that anyway as i like the thought of a the speaker being smaller as it physically can handling mid frequencys better then if it was a true 7 or 8". If someone could meassure their rf7/II and see what it is that would be something interesting to find if it is or not because it looks significantly larger than the RF 83's woofer with only 2 inches on it.

Couldnt that mean they could increase the basket size to a much larger size and then promote fake information on the build material ??.

From the circumference of the suspension not the basket itself, with the basket its 8" but i would have thought that when stating woofer size that the measurement would be from the actually woofer cone itself and if anything the suspension as well.

Im sure this has been covered somewhere but i could not see anything, from measurements taken on my system it actually looks to be 7" in diameter including measuring the suspension. Whats this all about exactly that makes them 8" on the specification table ??.

Yea its sorta gone off topic because all my questions were sorta answered with the custom extension cable, i understand how it all works now and what i need to do. I am familiar with the STX it is quite a nice peice of equipment for a computer though as you have said it still cant compare to a external dedicated amplifier.

Thanks for the suggestion that actually doesnt look too bad.

Haha i laughed a bit at the sarcasm, what i ment was a lot of people cant tell the difference between things like mp3 bitrate low/high where as i can tell drastically and cant stand anything but 320 and even then i still prefer cd quality when you have the right equipment paired with the material. Anyway i have some extended knowledge about audio and know everything there is about the sound card, if anything i would be looking into a dedicated external DAC as a pc soundcard cannot quite cut it in regards to pre amp technology. Iv been looking into DAC magic (cambridge) but probably will leave that last after a new proper amp and probably some better cabling as i do believe the cables are dropping performance as they can do with attenuation.

Its the marantz amp in my profile list, not made for Headphones but it does give a better current than the sound card does and is a noticeable improvement in sound quality, when the headphones are connected directly into the HP jack of the amplifier it sounds a lot cleaner. The quality difference is distinct separation in music instruments, tighter bass and clearer highs. Edit: I dont think the average person would be able to notice this however, i seem to have some sort of understanding on telling the difference between quality of sounds.

Computer sound card as pre amp (asus xonar d2x), connected with extension cable about 4 meteres long to another cable (3.5mm to L/R RCA) which connects to the main power amplifier (main in). Then a extension cable hooks up to the HP output of the amplifier (4m again) back to my headphones. These cables are run along side multiple different cables but i do not detect any noticeable noise on the line, im certain that noise cannot affect quality of sound but only add disruptive background noise that may hinder the sound as a anoyance. Headphones are about 100ohms i am probably looking into using 12 guage cable if i can as i have a tuck load to use if not will look into something smaller 15-20 maybe.

Im already using a high quality headphone amp so i will work on making some custom extension cables i think, 14 gauge would do i think just a tight fit haha xD.

Yea after a little more research i think the audible quality between the two are the same, the difference between them is just with noise control over distance. I think also that balanced cables can handle more power and control and that unbalanced is more for headphone or line level audio transfer. Why i ask all this is because the current cables im using to connect my headphones to the amp are less in sound quality than it is when connected directly without extension cable, the cable is about 4m long and not of high quality. Would this drop in quality be attenuation and lack of quality cable material causing a significant drop in clarity in the highs and lows ??.

Ok so in order to run stereo audio with 1/4" plugs i have to connect the left and right channel to each other and the ground in a ground-loop connection in order for it to work no ?, after some research on this matter and also looking into unbalanced vs balanced theory i have come to some ideas about the technology. Because TRS uses the same ground connection for the return path could this not pose problems with crosstalk and also decrease quality of sound compared to a fully unbalanced connection or a balanced connection as they would have their own return path ??. Also as for grounding i would have to say its vital to ground a sheild to ensure maximum potential of the rf shielding otherwise it will not work to its full extent. also TRS are considered unbalanced when they are run in stereo and when in mono they are balanced ??

Thanks for your help it does make sense i just would like to understand the return, as with all things i take interest in i like to fully understand everything to better understand the technology and improve my knowledge of it all.. So you say both drivers (channels/speakers) have a return path (common ground) but hows that possible when its using the sleeve connection ??, if im not mistaken tip/ring for left and right or vice versa and sleeve for common ground. If its not too much trouble i would much appreciate .

Ah yea that makes sense, when you say the ground is for the return im confused how both left and right channel use the same return and not interfeir with each other ?. wouldnt each channel need its only return for the AC to match correctly to the polarity of the signal ??. If i was wanting to make RCA for both left and right channel i would need to use TRS wouldnt i to make use of stereo as a TS would only be mono. Ok so for shielding if it was not grounded would it be rendered useless compared to it having no shield as the noise would not be redirecting the noise to the ground, if anything it would be worse ??? as noise would be introduced into the cable ??.

Im wanting to create some custom cables for my stereo system as i believe it will save money and get possibly higher quality connection in the long run, i have a few questions about this sort of set up and hope someone can help. With TRS i understand there are three connectors left right and common ground, i want to know what the purpose is of the common ground its job and is it needed. Second is about the shielding and if it is recommended to have with jumpers and or power cable, also i was told that you do not have to ground shielding but from what i know you must as it insures a much better connection and reduces interfierence dramatically. Much help would be gratefull.

Was the a/b comparison with a DeanG modified RF7 ??